Point of Law: Eligibility criteria for selection in Tokyo Paralympics - As per its own policy, PCI did not intend to treat a quota winner any differently than its other qualified Para Shooters and, barring grant of a single point in its favour at time of calculating average score, did not vest quota winner with any entitlement for qualification to Paralympics.

JUDGMENT :

REKHA PALLI, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred by a para-athlete who aspires to compete in the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics set to commence from 02.08.2021. It is the petitioner’s case that he is an award-winning athlete and has previously represented the country in five Paralympic games held between 1996 and 2016, in the Rifle and Pistol events. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent no.1/Paralympic Committee of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PCI’) to select respondent no.4/Mr.Deepak to represent India at the R-7 event, being Men’s 50m Rifle Position SH1, at the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics instead of the petitioner; he seeks a direction to respondent no.1 to include his name in the list of Selected Shooters for the R-7 event at the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics.

2. Assailing the decision of the PCI Selection Committee, Mr Varun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the eligibility criteria for selection in Tokyo Paralympics, each athlete interested in participating in the event had to achieve a Minimum Qualifying Score (MQS) at a Shooting Event, which would then be used to calculate his Final Average Score (FAS). To that end, there were two kinds of events, being international and domestic, in which the athlete could participate to build his FAS. He submits that however, the FAS calculated by the Committee appeared to deliberately deviate from the 2019-20 calculation criteria and contained inflated scores, which issue was raised by the petitioner in an e-mail sent by him to the President of the PCI on 17.07.2021. He draws my attention to a chart reflecting the score tabulation between the petitioner and respondent no.4 and submits that, contrary to the usual policy, the respondents decided to factor in the scores obtained by respondent no.4 in the Novi Sad 2021 World Shooting Para Sport (WSPS) Grand Prix, held between 01.04.2021 and 04.04.2021, even though it was not a recognised event for the purpose of score tabulation either by the PCI or the International Paralympic Committee (IPC). He submits that the Detailed Selection Criteria uploaded by the PCI on 18.06.2019 on its website for the Indian Paralympic Shooting Team at the Tokyo Paralympics, clearly stated that for the purpose of calculating MQS, only scores accumulated from the following eight shooting events would be considered - (i) Cheongju 2018 WSPS World Championship, Korea, (ii) Chateauroux 2018 World Cup, France (iii) Para-Asian Games, Jakarta, Indonesia 2013, (iv) Al Ain 2019 WSPS World Cup, UAE, (v) Osijek 2019 WSPS World Cup, Croatia, (vi) WSPS World Championship Sydney 2019, Australia, (vii) AI Ain 2020/21 WSPS World Cup, UAE and, (viii) Paralympic Selection Trials 2019-20/21. He submits that the criterion intentionally did not enlist Novi Sad Grand Prix as one of the qualifying events given that a World Cup is a tougher competition where a large number of countries participate, whereas Grand Prix have lesser competitors. This is why, as a matter of practice, even the Schedule issued by the parent body, IPC, did not include Grand Prix event scores for tallying the FAS of an athlete.

3. Mr. Singh ?then submits that the respondent no.4 was permitted and, in fact, encouraged to participate at the Novi Sad Grand Prix by the respondent no.1 pursuant to an e-mail that was specifically written by the Chairperson, STC Shooting, PCI to the Senior Manager (WSPS) of the IPC for his benefit, seeking guidance on how to enable respondent no.4 to acquire the requisite points to qualify for the Paralympic. He contends that it is only after receiving a response from the said Senior Manager (WSPS), IPC, stating that the last resort for respondent no.4 to collect the requisite score for the R-7 event was at the Novi Sad Grand Prix that the respondent no.1 hastened to enable respondent no.4 to participate in that event. He places emphasis on the fact that until the PCI went out of its way to seek such an excessive acco