The decision of who should represent India in a sporting event is best left to the experts in the field, and the qualification slot is allocated to the National Paralympic Committee and not to the individual athlete.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the action of the respondent No. 1 and 2 i.e. Union of India and Sports Authority of India respectively in not selecting the petitioner for participation in the Rio Paralympic Games, 2016 and selecting respondent No. 4. Further, mandamus is sought to select the petitioner for participation in the upcoming Paralympic Games, 2016 “Discus Throw” and to re-conduct selection trials in a fair and transparent manner.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a “Discus Throw” national para-athlete and has won two medals in Para-Asian Games, 2014. Because of her merit, the petitioner has won a “Quota” for the upcoming Rio-Paralympic Games, 2016 and is the first Indian female para-athlete to win such a Quota. The petitioner won the Quota on the basis of the International Paralympic Committee Athletics Marathon World Cup (London), 2016 method, one of the qualification systems prescribed by the Qualification Guide issued by the International Paralympic Committee for the Rio Paralympic Games, 2016. The petitioner in the International Paralympic Committee Athletics rankings over a 12 month period commencing from 01.04.2015 to 01.04.2016 ranks No. 5 in the world in the discipline of “Women Discus Throw”. It is the contention of the petitioner that, as per the International Paralympic Committee Regulations, since the petitioner has earned the Quota, she alone has the right to be sent for participation in the upcoming Rio Paralympic Games, 2016.

3. Reliance is placed on the glossary to the Qualification Guide which defines slot allocation as under:-      

4. It is contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 illegally on 08.07.2016 called for the selection trials to be conducted for various athletes on 26th July, 2016. The petitioner participated in the selection trials but immediately on 27th July, 2016 represented to the respondents No. 1 and 2 that the petitioner was not required to undergo any trial as the petitioner had secured the Quota and had the right to go against the said Quota. It is contended that in case the petitioner had not secured Quota, no female athlete would have had an opportunity to represent the country. It is contended that it is for the first time that any female athlete had earned the Quota on her own merits and since the petitioner had earned the Quota on her own merits, the petitioner alone has the right to represent India.

5. Respondent No. 4 who has been nominated by the Respondents 1 and 2 to represent India is a para-athlete, participating in the discipline of “Shot Put”.

6. The other grievance raised by the petitioner in the petition is that the selection trials that were conducted were not fair and were biased. It is contended that all the attempts/throws by the respondent No. 4 were fouls. However, the Selection Committee instead of declaring all the throws as foul, declared respondent No. 4 as qualified. A re-trial has been sought by the petitioner.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in some detail referred to the “Guidelines - Best practices for disability (track and field)” prescribed by the Paralympic Committee to contend that the attempts of the respondent No. 4 were all fouls.

8. When this petition was taken up on 04th August, 2016, it was noted that the last date for nominating athletes for the Rio Paralympic Games 2016, is 15.08.2016 and as 13th August, 2016 is a Second Saturday, 14th being a Sunday and 15th being a National Holiday, the effective last date for nomination would be 12th August, 2016. Since,