[Coach Selection] Kerala High Court Directs Sports Council To Reconsider Application Of Candidate Who Failed To Show Activeness In Sport After 2002

The Kerala High Court recently directed the State Sports Council to reconsider the application of a candidate under the Khelo India Scheme which was rejected for crossing the prescribed upper age limit, despite a provision in the selection notification of age relaxation for deserving candidates.

The candidate had applied to the post of Swimming Trainer at the District Sports Academy, Pirappancode under the State Level Khelo India Centre Scheme. However, he was not selected to the post, as he was beyond the upper age limit of 40 prescribed for the post and also because he failed to show that he had been active in swimming after the year 2002.

However, the Court noted that the selection notification allowed for relaxation of the age limit if the candidate is an exceptional sportsperson. The Court took specific note of the documents produced by the candidate in his appeal which showed the appellant was active in swimming in recent years. The Court observed that it was only because he failed to produce sufficient supporting documents at the time of the interview that the relaxation of age limit was not considered and his application was rejected.

A division bench comprising of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C Jayachandran observed:

“..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.”

The Candidate had filed an appeal against the order of the single judge who dismissed his plea challenging the selection holding that the appellant had failed to show that he was active in swimming since the year 2002 and that his achievements were more than 20 years old.

Under the Khelo India Scheme guidelines, the Kerala Sports Council had invited applications for coaches for posts in District Sports Academies in various Districts across the state. The upper age limit was 40 years, with a provision for relaxation in deserving cases. The candidates were also required to be sports persons who had achieved medals at the National and International levels.

Two candidates had applied to the post challenged by the appellant. The selected candidate (2nd respondent) was appointed as Swimming Trainer at the District Sports Academy, Pirappancode, for a period of one year.

Adv T Sanjay appeared for the Appellant and Adv Latha Anand appeared for the Kerala Sports Council and Adv V S Sudhir appeared for the 2nd Respondent.

The Appellant contended that the 2nd Respondent only satisfied the qualification prescribed as 3rd preference in the eligibility criteria while the appellant satisfied the qualification prescribed as 2nd preference. The Appellant also produced certificates in the discipline of swimming to show that he had been active even after 2002 and was a deserving candidate for age relaxation. The Appellant also questioned the eligibility of the selected candidate as his achievement was in the field of water polo and not in swimming per se.

The Counsel for the Sports Council contended that the Appellant was not considered as the credentials produced by him during the selection process were from more than 20 years ago. Meanwhile the 2nd Respondent could demonstrate that he had been active in swimming until recently. The sports council contended that as the appellant could not show any documents to showcase his exceptional ability in swimming, his candidature was not considered for relaxation of age.

The Court observed that the Appellant had not produced certificates before the Interview Board to show he was active in swimming after 2001 and that the Board was denied an opportunity to assess whether the Appellant's case was a deserving one for age relaxation. Assessing the certificates produced by the Appellant in appeal, the court stated that it “certainly deserves serious consideration to find out whether the petitioner's case is a deserving one for the purpose of age relaxation”.

The Court also observed that “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.”

Consequently, the Court directed the Sports Council to reconsider the Appellant’s application in light of documents produced to show he was active in the sport after 2002.

Case Title: Satheesh Kumar R V Kerala State Sports Council & Another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 258

Click here to read/download judgment