Oral
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Km. Vishwa Mohini and the learned counsel appearing for the State respondents. None appears for the opposite party no. 5 although a counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. Since, the matter is old, it is being heard and decided on merits.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashing of the letter dated 3.6.2010 contained in Annexure 24 to the petition passed by the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training (herein after referred to as 'DIET'), Balrampur and for issuance of a direction to the opposite parties to cancel the admission of opposite party no. 5 against one backlog seat of Sports Quota in BTC 2004 at DIET, Balrampur and to readmit the petitioner for pursuing the aforesaid training course.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by means of a Government Order dated 20.2.2004 applications were invited from eligible candidates for BTC Training. In paragraph 4(b) of the said Government Order, weightage was given to sports person on the certain conditions mentioned therein. The conditions mentioned that the candidate should be a National Level Player or a State Level Player and for thus a Certificate issued by Indian Olympic Association or the U.P. Olympic Association alone shall be considered sufficient. Later on, the said Government Order was modified by another Government Order dated 20.3.2006 and in place of giving weightage to sports person who had represented State at the National Level, two percent seats were reserved for sports person who had represented the State of U.P. in any National Game approved by the Olympic / Commonwealth / Asian Games Committee.
4. The petitioner being a resident of Balrampur and a Cricket player of National Level applied for BTC 2004 and was initially issued a letter calling her for verification of her documents.
5. It has been submitted that the petitioner had represented the State of U.P. in Xth Senior Women's Cricket State Championship and also the XIth Senior Women's Cricket State Championship, and also participated in XIII Central Zone Women's Cricket Championship. It is therefore not disputed that the petitioner participated in State Level Championship. Moreover, the petitioner twice represented the State of U.P. in National Women's Cricket Championship organised by the Women's Cricket Association of India. She was thus representing the State of U.P. at a National Level Championship. Her Certificates filed as Annexures 17 & 18 were found sufficient by the District Level Selection Committee and she was given admission in training course.
6. Later on, however on 12.11.2009, the Principal, DIET, Balrampur directed the petitioner to go back home and only come after intimation her training was discontinued after about fifteen days. When the petitioner submitted her representation in this regard on 11.12.2009, she received a reply on 13.3.2010 that she was not holding a Certificate of National Game, and therefore she could not be allowed to continue with the training whereas the opposite party no. 5 had a Certificate of the National Level and she was admitted in her place. The petitioner being aggrieved approached this Court after filing representations to the District Magistrate, the Chairman of the District Level Committee and to the Principal Secretary, Basic Education.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the two Government Orders and has emphasised that the later Government Order did not give any marks for any of the Certificates, but only provided that two percent seats would be reserved for sports quota for such sports person who had participated in Olympics / Commonwealth Games / Asian Games and had represented the State of U.P. at National Level.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that at-least two of her Certificates related to her participation in Junior National Women's Cricket Championship, on the other hand the Certificates of Kumari Archana Agarwal do not belong to National Level Championship. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Annexures filed along with the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 5. It has been pointed out that the opposite party no. 5's Certificates only showed that she had participated in University Level Games and not National Level Games.
9. This Court has carefully perused the Certificates, copies of which have been filed by the opposite party no. 5. Annexure no. 2 relates to 21st National Sports Festival for Women organised by the Government of India, Department of Youth Affairs & Sports, and says that Kumari Archana Agarwal of U.P. participated in Hockey at the games held at Cuttack (Orissa) in December 1998 organised by the Directorate of Sports & Youth Services, Government of Orissa.
10. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that she has filed with her rejoinder affidavit the information provided by the Public Information Officer from the Directorate of Sports, U.P., Lucknow dated 6.5.2015 which states clearly that a National Level Player will only be such player who had participated in International Games as a member of the National Team and Certificates should have been issued by the Organising Committee in this regard.
11. It has been submitted on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 5 that the opposite party no. 5 has played only in Junior National Games as part of the team of State of U.P. and she cannot be said to be a National Player.
12. The State respondents have filed their counter affidavit wherein they have stated clearly that initially opposite party no. 5 and the petitioner were both called for counselling at DIET, Balrampur along with original certificates as there was one vacancy of female sport person available as per the Government Orders issued from time to time. The petitioner's quality point marks were 145.17 whereas that of the opposite party no. 5 - Kumari Archana Agarwal was 158.18 marks. However, there was a doubt with regard to the Certificates issued to Kumari Archana Agarwal, and therefore a letter was sent to the Issuing Authority to verify the correctness of the Certificates. The petitioner was given admission provisionally in BTC Course with the understanding that if the Certificates of opposite party no. 5 were verified then she, having more marks, shall be given admission instead of the petitioner.
13. A letter was received from the Sports Authority of India regarding correctness of Certificates of Kumari Archana Agarwal and she was given admission, and all necessary information was given to the petitioner through Letter No. 899/2010-11 dated 3.6.2010, and she was asked to take back her original Certificates from the office of the Principal. The petitioner did not contact the office of the Principal. A copy of the letter dated 3.6.2010 has been filed as Annexure to the counter affidavit.
14. A perusal of the letter dated 3.6.2010 shows that the petitioner has not been non-suited because of her not being a National Level player, but because Kumari Archana Agarwal was found to be a National player and had secured more quality point marks. A merit was 156.18 whereas that of the petitioner was 149.17.
15. It has been argued by learned standing counsel also on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit in paragraphs 9 & 12, that there was only one seat available, both petitioner and the opposite party no. 5 were National Level players, but Kumari Archana Agarwal had better merit, and therefore should have selected.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue that Kumari Archana Agarwal was not a National Level Player on the basis of information given by the Public Information Officer in response to her RTI Application on 6.5.2015. This Court is not convinced.
17. It is apparent from a perusal of the Certificates of the petitioner and that of opposite party no. 5 that both have represented the State of U.P. in National Level Games, and they can be treated to be eligible under the Government Orders dated 20.2.2004 and 20.3.2006 to have represented the State of U.P. in National Level Games. However, none of these two players were International Level Players. The petitioner had put up a query in her RTI Application which was deliberately misleading and the Public Information Officer answered the query by his letter dated 6.5.2015 giving the definition of International Level Player as one who had represented the National Team.
18. Admittedly, neither the petitioner nor the opposite party no. 5 had been part of the National Team. Both were part of the Team of State of U.P. and participated in the National Level Games. The quality point marks of the opposite party no. 5 were higher, and therefore she was entitled to be given the one seat available for BTC Training at DIET, Balrampur. She was rightly given such training. No right would accrue to the petitioner if an illegality was committed at an earlier point of time by the District Selection Committee / Opposite party no. 3 in not recognising the Certificates of opposite party no. 5 initially and giving the petitioner admission in BTC Course on 28.10.2009.
19. The State respondents rectified the mistake, they had committed when on 12.11.2009 they informed the petitioner that the Certificates of the opposite party no. 5 had been verified and the petitioner no longer stood eligible for the BTC Course. It is settled law that correction of administrative mistake is well within the rights of the State respondents. No right would accrue to the petitioner out of the mistake committed earlier by the respondents.
20. The writ petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Arif