A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

Two accomplished shuttle badminton players of the State of Kerala are before us in these proceedings challenging their exclusion from the Women’s team that was selected to represent India at the 2018 Asian Games. The event is scheduled to be held at Jakarta, Indonesia, between 18th and 29th of August 2018.

2. Aggrieved by their exclusion from the team, as well as the inclusion of two other players therein, the writ petitioners preferred W.P.(C).No.21900 of 2018 before a Single Judge of this Court. By way of interim reliefs, directions were sought to the Badminton Association of India to refrain from sending the select list of players to the Indian Olympic Association, as also to restrain the said respondents from permitting the two included players – arrayed as the 6th and 7th respondents in the writ petition – to participate in the Asian Games. The said interim reliefs were refused by the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 10.07.2018, on the finding that the last date for sending the names of players for the Asian Games was 30.06.2018, and the writ petition itself was filed only on 02.07.2018. The belated approach before this court was seen as reason enough to deny the interim relief. The writ petitioners therefore filed W.A.Nos.1410 and 1411 of 2018 before this Court, aggrieved by the denial of interim reliefs. When the appeals came for admission, noticing the urgency projected on behalf of the appellants, we deemed it appropriate to call for the writ petition itself before this court so as to finally decide the main issue agitated therein. It is thus that the present writ appeals and writ petition are before us.

3. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners/appellants, the learned senior counsel Sri. Bechu Kurien Thomas would submit that the selection for the national team is based on the performance of the players in two selection tournaments – one at Bangalore and the other at Hyderabad – and in the said tournaments, the petitioners had obtained a total of 850 points for their participation in the women’s doubles events. It is pointed out that the points earned were consequent to their reaching the finals, and being declared winners, in one tournament and reaching the semi-finals in the other and, although respondents 6 and 7 had also participated in the women’s singles events in both the said tournaments, their achievements were not as commendable as that of the petitioners. It is his further submission that the national women’s team is to comprise of ten players, and after selection of two singles players and a doubles pair, the selectors had the option of selecting two additional singles players as reserve players for the singles events and a doubles pair as reserve for the doubles event. Had that course been adopted, the petitioners would have made the cut as the reserve doubles pair. Contrary to that, however, the selection committee opted for four reserve singles players and no reserve doubles pair, leading to the exclusion of the petitioners, and the inclusion of respondents 6 and 7, who were taken in based on their performance in the singles event at the selection tournaments. The decision of the selection committee, to prefer two additional singles players to a doubles pair, is stated to be on account of the fact that the 6th respondent is the daughter of the 5th respondent who, in his capacity as the Chief National Coach, is also a member of the selection committee. The decision in A.K. Kraipak and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.– [AIR 1970 SC 150] is relied upon to contend that the presence of the 5th respondent, in the selection committee that selected the 6th respondent, is vitiated on account of bias.

4. In his challenge to the order dated 10.07.2018 of the learned single judge, refusing the interim reliefs prayed for on the ground that the writ petition had been filed belatedly, the learned senior counsel would submit that the cut-off date of 30.06.2018 is not an in