Deemed Ministry approval for international sports participation (non-major events) validates eligibility despite late production in review proceedings.

ORDER :-

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member

The Original Applicants had approached this Tribunal challenging the select list published by the Departmental Selection Committee of Postal Department dated 19.05.2022, for selection to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, Postman/Mail Guard, Multi- Tasking Staff under the Sports Quota, to the extent of rejecting their applications. Applicants alleged that four candidates shortlisted from Ball Badminton category were less meritorious than the applicants. They challenged the selection of Shalu, Pavithra, Anand Gopan and Meenu Thomas under the category of Ball Badminton. Regarding Pavithra and Anad Gopan they had advanced one specific ground. The contention was that both of them were selected on the basis that they had participated in an International Ball Badminton Tournament, which was accepted by the Department. It was contended by the original applicants that both of them have not participated in any international games and had not represented India in official capacity. It was further contended that both have participated in an international event at their own expense. They were not sponsored by the Ministry of Youth Affairs. It was further contented that there were two national teams for India in that event. Representation of the above persons, if any, in the event, was not approved by the Ministry of Youth Affairs. They participated in such tournaments with their own funds. Hence certificate evidencing such participation relied on the Postal Department could not have been accepted as evidence of participation in an international event, as contemplated under the notification inviting applications.

2. Clause 10 of the Notification which was produced along with the Original Application provided that first preference will be given to those candidates who had represented the country in an international competition with the clearance of Department of Youth Affairs and Sports. Clause 9 dealt with the authorities competent to award certificates of eligibility of the sports persons.

3. Both sides filed separate reply statements and the contesting parties were heard. This Tribunal, on an evaluation of the entire facts touching on the selection of Pavithra and Ananda Gopan found that though they had produced documents issued by competent authorities evidencing that they had participated in an international event as required under Annexure A-1, that did not answer the crucial question whether they had participated in the international competition “with the clearance of Department of Youth Affairs and Sports” as specifically provided in the notification. It was held by this Tribunal that no document was produced by any of the contesting respondents to establish that the said persons– Pavithra and Anada Gopan had participated in the international event with the clearance of Department of Youth Affairs and Sports.

4. On the basis of this clear finding, both the O.As were allowed and it was declared that selection of Pavithra and Ananda Gopan in Sports Quota based on international participation was void. It was declared that the certificates relied on by the authority for selecting them could not be considered as satisfying the criteria lay down in Clause 10(i) of the notification. Since disputes were raised regarding the comparative evaluation of candidates, who were placed at the second and third position with candidates who were placed at the 1^st and second place, competent authority among the respondents was directed to re-evaluate the whole documents produced and consider the competency of the applican