Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sushant Ulhasrao Kawade, filed a writ petition challenging the selection of respondent no.3, Sandip Sambhaji Yadav, for the post of District Sports Officer under the sports quota. The petitioner contended that he had better sports achievements and that the selection was arbitrary. The respondents argued that the selection was based on a transparent process involving a written test and interview, and that the petitioner scored lower marks than respondent no.3. The court examined the facts and found that the petitioner had obtained 50 marks in the written test and 30 marks in the interview, totaling 80 marks, while respondent no.3 obtained 60 marks in the written test and 35 marks in the interview, totaling 95 marks. The court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the selection process or the marks awarded. The court also observed that the petitioner failed to implead other selected candidates who were appointed along with respondent no.3. The court held that the selection was based on merit and that there was no illegality or arbitrariness. The court further held that it cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the selection committee unless mala fides or perversity is shown, which was not the case. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Sports Quota Recruitment - Selection Process - The petitioner challenged the selection of respondent no.3 for the post of District Sports Officer under sports quota, claiming that the petitioner had better sports achievements. The court held that the selection was based on marks obtained in the written test and interview, and the petitioner scored lower marks than the selected candidate. The court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process. (Paras 2-5) B) Service Law - Locus Standi - Non-impleadment of Selected Candidates - The petitioner did not implead the selected candidates who were appointed along with respondent no.3. The court held that the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. (Para 4) C) Service Law - Judicial Review - Scope - The court held that it cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the selection committee unless mala fides or perversity is shown. No such case was made out. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the selection of respondent no.3 for the post of District Sports Officer under sports quota was arbitrary and illegal, and whether the petitioner, who obtained lower marks in the selection process, has any right to challenge the selection.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Selection process for sports quota posts must be based on merit and marks obtained in selection process
- not merely on sports achievements
- Writ petition not maintainable when petitioner fails to implead selected candidates and challenge selection process
- High Court cannot sit in appeal over selection committee's decision unless mala fides or perversity shown.
