Asha, J. Petitioner is the applicant in T.A.No.2909 of 2012 which was dismissed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. She claimed appointment under the Scheme “Recruitment under Sports Quota in Public Services”, by virtue of her best performance in the Volleyball discipline during the year 2006.
2. Government of Kerala has formulated a scheme for appointment of Outstanding Sports Persons in Public Services, in G.O.(P) 361/85/GAD dated 22.08.1985 (Ext.P2), as per which 20 appointments will be made every year subject to availability of suitably qualified persons.
3. By Ext.P5 notification issued on 04.09.2010, applications were invited from Sportsmen/women who have made the achievements in sports/games disciplines enumerated therein, during the calendar years 2006-2008 and 2009 for appointment in the State Government service under the scheme for appointment of outstanding sportsmen/women in public services. The number of vacancies was stated to be 60 for the years 2006-2008 and 50 for the year 2009. It was further stipulated that appointments made in the field of sports for the calendar years 2006-08 and 2009 alone will be considered for appointment. In Annexure-1 to the notification, the number of posts earmarked for the discipline Volleyball was shown as 3.
4. Claiming that the petitioner secured the second place in the 54th Senior National Volleyball Championship for men and women held at Pune from 10.01.2006 to 20.01.2006, as evident from Ext.P1, she submitted an application for the recruitment.
5. The 1st respondent published the select list of 121 candidates for filling up 60 vacancies for the period 2006-08, as per Ext.P7 notification issued in G.O.(Rt.) No.7230/2011/GAD dated 24.09.011. The petitioner was included as No.2 in the reserve list. Respondents 3 to 5 were included as rank Nos.1 to 3 in the main list.
6. At this stage the petitioner approached this Court filing Writ Petition No.28748 of 2011, challenging Ext.P7 select list to the extent it related to the discipline Volleyball. She also prayed for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider only the performance for the Calendar Year 2006 for appointing outstanding sports persons under the scheme against quota/post for the year 2006 and to make selection afresh in the discipline Volleyball accordingly.
7. The Writ Petition was transferred to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.2909 of 2012. The official respondents as well as the party respondents filed counter affidavits supporting the selection made. By Annexure VI order, the Tribunal dismissed the T.A, observing that she did not challenge the notification Ext.P5 and that she chose to challenge the select list only after she took her chance, applied for the post and got included in the wait list. The Tribunal held that as long as Ext.P5 notification is valid, there is nothing wrong in the select list.
8. It is against this order that, the petitioner approached this Court in this O.P(KAT). We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the official respondents and the party respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that there was nothing in Ext.P5 notification which indicated that the appointments for all the years from 2006 to 2008 would be clubbed together for the purpose of selection and that there was no circumstance for him at the relevant time to challenge the notification. According to him, the petitioner was the right person to be appointed based on her performance in the year 2006. At the same time, the learned counsel for the party responders asserted that the 5th respondent had also participated in the Volleyball tournament in the year 2006 itself and that there was nothing in the scheme which prohibited clubbing of vacancies. In the counter affidavit, the Government stated that appointment for the years 2006-2008 and 2009 could not be made in the respective years due to certain administrative reasons. It was also stated that from the notification Ext.P5 it was clearly discernible that selection of candidates for the years 2006 to 2008 would be made by clubbing the vacancies of the 3 years and that the petitioner did not make any objections at the time of publication of the notification. It was further stated that on earlier occasions also Government have made selection by clubbing the vacancies. It is also stated that, all the 3 who were given appointment for the years 2006 to 2008 from the discipline of Volleyball, had more priority points than the petitioner.
9. Even though the scheme Ext.P2 provides for 20 appointments every year, the notification Ext.P5 was the one inviting applications for the years 2006 to 2008. Clause 2.7 of Ext.P5 read as follows:
“The achievements made in the field of sports for the calendar years 2006-08 and 2009 alone will be considered for appointment.”
The petitioner herself has produced the previous notification Ext.P4 issued on 04.02.2006, wherein clause 2.7 read:
“The achievements made in the field of sports for the calendar year 2005 alone will be considered for appointment.”
Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no indication regarding the clubbing of vacancies.
10. It is clear that the petitioner chose to challenge the select list, only when she found that she was ranked only in the reserve list, that too without challenging the notification inviting applications. The petitioner does not have a case that any unqualified hands have been appointed. There are also no malafides alleged against the selection.
In the above circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. There is no merit in the claim put forward by the petitioner. Hence this Original Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their costs.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge rtr/ Sd/- P.V.ASHA Judge