Sanjana Sharma v. Central Industrial Security Force

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may in exercise of writ jurisdiction and be pleased to: a) Quash or set aside para no. 15 of circular no.13/2018/sports, dated 24.10.2018, containing sports policy only for sports personnel. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction thereby directing Respondent No.1 to provide “NOC” (No Course for Sports Coaching 2022-23, in Netaji Subhash National Institute of Sports (Academic wing of “Sports Authority of India”,; and c) Pass any other writ or order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” W.P.(C) 12403/2022 Page 2

2. The case of the petitioner is that she joined the respondent No.1, i.e., Central Industrial Security Force (‘CISF’, for short) as Constable on September 2, 2006. On March 21, 2019, the respondent No.1 inducted the petitioner in the Kabaddi Team at NFL Panipat. After approximately two years, on February 11, 2021 on removal from Kabaddi Team by the respondent No.1, the petitioner was sent back to join duty.

3. On April 28, 2022, the petitioner filled an online application form for the entrance examination of one year Diploma Course in Sports Coaching conducted by the Netaji Subhas National Institute of Sports (NSNIS) Old Moti Bagh, Patiala for the academic year 2022-

2023. She had also on May 6, 2022 submitted an application to the respondent No.1 through proper channel for grant of NOC for seeking admission to the aforesaid course.

4. On May 26, 2022, the respondent No.1 rejected the application of the petitioner for NOC by mentioning that, her recruitment was not from Sports Quota. Aggrieved by the decision dated May 26, 2022, of the respondent No.1, she on May 30, 2022, submitted an application to the Deputy Inspector General for personal interview, regarding the rejection of her NOC application, required for admission in Diploma Course in Sports Coaching, 2022-2023, but she was not allowed to meet Deputy Inspector General.

5. On June 18, 2022, she appeared in the entrance exam held for the aforesaid course wherein the petitioner secured 41 marks out of 60 and she was declared qualified for interview. She also appeared in the W.P.(C) 12403/2022 Page 3 interview on July 28, 2022, and in the final result declared thereof, it transpired that she has secured 26th rank at the All India Level. In the earlier round of litigation initiated by the petitioner being W.P.(C) 11603/2022, this Court on August 5, 2022 disposed of the petition by granting liberty to her to challenge the CISF Circular dated October 24, 2018 as per law which resulted in the withdrawal of the said writ petition. Accordingly, the present petition has been filed challenging the said circular.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily relatable to two provisions in the circular dated October 24, 2018, being Clauses 15(a) and (c) to contend that the said stipulations in the policy are arbitrary as it excludes a person like the petitioner, who was part of the Kabaddi Team at NFL Panipat, and had excelled in the Sport to be eligible to coach the Kabaddi Team of CISF. Further, she was not sent to any International Tournament for her to have the eligibility under Clause (c). The relevant clauses are reproduced as under:- “15. NIS Course of Sports Personnel: - The following criteria have been fixed for granting permission to attend the NIS diploma course in various disciplines for CISF Sportsmen who apply for study at SAI or other Centres: “(a) Must have put In 05 years service continuously in CISF & should be appointed under sports Quota. xxx xxx xxx

(c) Must have attended at least 02 International

7. He states that if these two stipulations are relaxed, the petitioner shall be eligible to get NOC for undertaking the Course. W.P.(C) 12403/2022 Page 4

8. We are not impressed by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that the permission is granted only to those CISF Sportsmen, who have been appointed under the Sports Quota. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed under Sports Quota. It is only those persons, who have been appointed under Sports Quota, who are more appropriate / eligible to take the duties of coach because they are meant to devout time and expertise only in sports activities unlike an employee who is not appointed under Sports Quota.

9. That apart, even the stipulation of having attended two International Tournaments / Championship is justified as it is only a sportsman having experience at international level, who by his / her very participation has learnt the techniques / expertise as prevalent internationally, so as to impart those techniques to the sportsmen representing the CISF.

10. We note that Clause 2 of the Circular dated October 24, 2018, which relates to AIM OF SPORTS POLICY states the following: “The aim of Sports Policy of CISF is to provide a structured framework and approach for organizing sports in the CISF to get to the pinnacle of sporting excellence. Its objective is also to ensure that the personnel have access to a broad range of sports activities and lays down guidelines and broad directions for sportspersons, Coaches, nodal officers to ensure smooth and appropriate conduct of sporting activities in a systematic manner. Laying down a clearly defined policy will ensure & encourage enhancement of sporting excellence by streamlining the selection, training, proper maintenance of sports teams, various kinds of requirements of sports W.P.(C) 12403/2022 Page 5 teams, overall sports administration, concentration and coaching.” (emphasis supplied)

11. We are of the view that a policy having been framed by the respondents to suit their requirement with some objective, the same cannot be interfered with by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The law with regard to judicial review, in respect policy matters is well settled by the Supreme Court. In the case of Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under: