SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Dadaso Balaso Awad – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No.12592 of 2023
Decided on : 05-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Jagtap a/w. Ms. Sairuchita Chowdhary and Mr. Ishan Paradkar i/by M/s. J. Shekhar & Co.
For the Respondent: Mr. N. C. Walimbe

The employer has the authority to decide qualifications for a particular post, and the court's scope of judicial review in such matters is limited.

Headnote:

Sports Coach Qualification Dispute - Article 226 Petition - 7.2 of the advertisement - [Sports Coach] - [Qualification Dispute] - [Article 16 of the Constitution of India, Anand Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2021) 12 SCC 390, State of Maharashtra Vs. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252, Dilip Kumar Garg & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 753, Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir] - The court discussed the constitutional validity of the advertisement for the post of Sports Coach and the qualifications prescribed, emphasizing the employer's authority to decide qualifications and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. The court cited various legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners, diploma holders in Sports Coaching, challenged an advertisement for the post of Sports Coach, arguing that only NIS diploma holders should be considered for the position. The Respondents had prescribed qualifications including degree holders in physical education and state level sportspersons, which the Petitioners contested as arbitrary and discriminatory.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the qualification for appointment to a particular post is for the employer to decide, and the expertise for such determination lies with the employer. It held that the court cannot substitute its decision for that of the employer and cannot deal with the issue of equivalence/non-equivalence of qualifications. The court also noted that the Petitioners did not challenge the decision of the expert body as malafide.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the court could exercise judicial review over the fixing of qualifications for the appointment of a Sports Coach.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the employer's authority to decide qualifications and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, citing various legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality in the qualifications prescribed by the Respondents for the post of Sports Coach.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA JAIN, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the advertisement published on 19th July 2023 for the post of Sports Coach. The substantive prayers reads as under:-

    “A. The Hon’ble Court may kindly issue writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ and/or direction and/or order and thereby examine the constitutional validity of the advertisement published on 19.07.2023, annexed at Exhibit E herein, and direct that the impugned advertisement is arbitrary, unfair and causing a discrimination to the Petitioners by compelling them to compete with candidates holding a degree in physical education as well as state level sportsperson, who are not professionally trained as a coach under the National Institute of Sport and therefore the impugned advertisement ultra vires to the constitution to the extend of appointment of Sports Coach posts, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly quash and set aside the impugned advertisement dated 19.07.2023;

B. The Hon’ble Court may kindly issue writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ and/or direction and/or order and thereby direct that the Respondent No.2 has made an illegal addition of criteria, more particularly mentioned in clause 7.2 of an impugned advertisement, by adding degree holders in the Physical Education and the State level Sportspersons and thereby further direct to allow only candidates holding a Diploma in Sports Coach and candidates who are international as well as national sportsperson in a specific sport activity;”

Brief facts:-

2. The Petitioners are the Diploma holders in Sports Coaching from Netaji Subhash National Institute of Sports, Patiala (for short “NIS”). They have also participated at National and State level in Kabaddi and Kho-kho Sports. The Petitioners have completed one year Diploma Education Programme from NIS. On 19th July 2023, the Respondents issued an advertisement for the post of Sports Coach for 50 vacancies. Translated paragraph 7.2 of the said advertisement provides for qualification of the candidate for the said post of Sports Coach, which reads thus:-

    “7.2 Sports Instructor :-

(1) Candidate should have passed degree examination of a recognized Institution in physical education alongwith the degree examination in Arts/ Science/ Commerce /Law faculty of Constitutional University,

OR

(2) Candidate should have passed Diploma examination (Instructor) in Sports Field held by the Kolkata, Bangalore and Gandhinagar Divisional Centres of Netaji Subhashchandra National Sports Academy, Patiyala or by any recognized Institutions similar thereto,

OR

(3) Candidate should have passed Degree examination (B.P.E.) in Physical education with the main subject viz. Physical education.

OR

(4) Candidate should have received State/National Award in any specific sport.”

3. The Petitioners have challenged the above qualifications in the present petition and prayed that only a diploma holder from NIS should be considered for the said post.

4. The Petitioners contend that the candidates holding Bachelor in Physical Education course are eligible to be appointed as teacher in schools and colleges and the training given to these candidates pursuing Bachelor of Physical Education (for short “BPE”) is of soft skills, such as leadership, students physic and psyche and overall physical training. Whereas the Petitioners who have obtained a Diploma from NIS in ‘Coaching Programme’, are eligible for the post of sports coaching. The Petitioners further contend that equal status cannot be given to the candidates holding BPE, and candidates holding diploma in sports coach, and only candidates holding diploma in sports coach and no other candidate should be made eligible for the post of sports coach. It, therefore, the Petitioner’s contention that the said qualifications are ultra-vires.

5. The Petitioners further contend that a degree in physical education provides a general training in sports, whereas a diploma cours

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top