Eligibility In Water Polo Questionable: Kerala HC Directs Sports Council To Re-Consider Candidature Of Swimming Trainer Under Khelo India

The upper age limit as on October 31, 2022, was fixed to be 40 years, with a rider for relaxation in deserving cases.

“…In other words, if the petitioner had produced necessary documents as above at the time of interview, to convince the official respondents, he could have been granted relaxation. But the respondents never stipulated that the candidates must produce the upto date testimonials, often than the certificates to prove the basic eligibility, which he has produced. So the respondents were duly bound to demand such upto date certificates and should have given minimum reasonable time to the petitioner to produce such additional materials. When the selection notification was in the discipline of swimming, it is seriously open to doubt as to whether the contesting respondent, who is in the discipline of water polo, was eligible”, a bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran observed in the matter.

Advocate T Sanjay appeared for the appellant, Senior Advocate Latha Anand appeared for the Sports Council

In the pertinent matter, the appellant-petitioner came in appeal against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court. It was contended that for the interview, there were only 2 candidates, where one was petitioner-appellant, and the respondent no. 2. The petitioner objecting to the appointment of the respondent no. 2 contended that a medal in water polo in the inter university championship, is a team event, and does not satisfy the eligibility criteria of the subject discipline, swimming.

It was further argued that in the absence of any other candidate, the petitioner satisfied the eligibility prescribed in the very discipline of swimming.

According to the petitioner, the certificates produced in the very discipline of swimming clearly establish that the petitioner has been active in that sport event even after the year 2002. Therefore, contended that he was an exceptional and deserving case for age relaxation as envisaged in the notification.

As per the averments made by the Council, the appellant/petitioner was not considered for the reason that the credentials produced by him pertained to 20 years old competitions held about 20 years ago, during the years 1999, 2000 and 2002, which raised questions on the fact that whether he was active in the sport at all since 2002.

Whereas, the 2nd respondent satisfied the eligibility criteria. Also pointed out that the petitioner was aged 44 years at the time of consideration of his application, which was clearly beyond the upper age limit of 40 years.

Therefore, noting the submissions made and the contentions put forth, the Court was of the opinion that as far as the respondent no. 2 was concerned, his medals in water polo did not satisfy the criteria of merit in swimming.

“It is true that the petitioner had not produced Exts.P9 to P18 certificates before the Interview Board, thus depriving the Board an opportunity to assess whether the petitioner's case is a deserving one for the purpose of age relaxation. However, we cannot keep a Nelson's eye to the fact that such testimonials were not called for by the 1st respondent Council to be produced before the Interview Board. We also find prima facie merit in the appellant's contention that a medal secured in a team event of Water Polo cannot be considered in preference to the various medals secured by the petitioner/appellant in the subject discipline of swimming itself”, the bench further observed.

The bench further stated that the 2nd respondent may continue in the post, purely on temporary/ad hoc basis, as a stop-gap arrangement.

Cause Title: Satheesh Kumar. R v. Kerala State Sports Council [Neutral Citation No.: 2023:KER:29430]