MR. V.VARSHITH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

4. The learned counsel Sri Suresh Babu B. N., appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that allocation of marks for participation in the events is grossly arbitrary, as the 5 participants who participate in senior level National Championship or the like are assigned higher marks than those who participate in junior level National Championship. The learned counsel would further submit that Ekalavya awards are conferred on the basis of points and the points are allotted differently for senior and junior levels. Therefore, the petitioner has not been enlisted for conferring Ekalavya award at any point in time. On this score, the learned counsel would submit that it is highly arbitrary and should be made equal to all participants in all Championships to be eligible for conferment of award on the basis of marks allotted.

5. Per-contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that it is the policy of the State Government to divide senior and junior level National Championship participants and on that basis award marks. It is his submission that it is highly ununderstandable as to how such differentiation can even construed to be arbitrary. The participation is clearly indicated. The sports tournaments conducted at junior level are entirely different from National Championship at senior level. The sport that the petitioner plays is a non-Olympic 6 game. It is a roller skating and since the petitioner is in a non- Olympic game, he is entitled to participate in any number of tournaments. Therefore, the marks would grossly vary qua others. It is therefore, keeping in mind and after holding deliberations with all the sporting experts, guidelines are drawn in the form of a policy. This Court would not interfere with such policy, unless it is demonstrably shown that it is so arbitrary, that would warrant interference. The learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that participants at the senior level are in a higher pedestal than those who are in junior level. Both cannot be equated by any stretch of imagination. She would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The issue lies in a narrow compass. It is not in dispute that to recognize the participants in sporting events organized by the Sports Federation, the State confers Karnataka Ekalavya awards. The conferment of award is foundationed upon guidelines issued by 7 the State Government from time to time. In the year 2010, the State formulates certain guidelines for allocation of marks and on that basis, brings the sports persons into the eligibility list for conferment of Ekalavya awards. The guidelines issued in the year 2010 insofar as marks being allotted read as follows: “CAPÀ ¥ÀnÖ CAvÀgÀgÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ- (ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄA¥ÀÄ QæÃqÉUÀ¼ÀÄ) PÀæ.¸À. ¸ÀàzsÉðUÀ¼ÀÄ 1 M®A¦Pïì 2 ªÀ¯ïØð PÀ¥ï 3 KµÀå£ï UÉêÀiïì 4 KµÀå£ï ZÁA¦AiÀģﶥï 5 PÁªÀÄ£ï ªÉ¯ïÛ UÉêÀiïì 6 J£ïJJDgï¹/J¸ïJJ¥sï 7 EvÀgÉ (QjAiÀÄgÀ QæÃqÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ) ¨sÁUÀªÀ»¸ÀÄ«PÉ a£Àß ¨É½î PÀAZÀÄ 60 50 40 35 30 25 15 100 80 80 60 60 50 55 45 50 40 40 30 25 20 100 80 60 55 50 30 20 gÁ¶æöÖÃAiÀÄ- (ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄA¥ÀÄ QæÃqÉUÀ¼ÀÄ) ¨sÁUÀªÀ»¸ÀÄ«PÉ a£Àß ¨É½î PÀAZÀÄ 20 20 10 15 PÀæ.¸À. ¸ÀàzsÉðUÀ¼ÀÄ 1 £ÁåµÀ£À¯ï ZÁA¦AiÀģﶥï (EAlgï ¸ÉÖÃmï/¥sÉqÀgÉõÀ£ï PÀ¥ï/EAlgï eÉÆãÀ¯ï) 2 £ÁåµÀ£À¯ï UÉêÀiïì 15 15 10 5 (cid:2)ೌಲ(cid:5)(cid:2)ಾಪನ ಸಮಯದ(cid:13)(cid:14) (cid:15)ೆ(cid:17), (cid:18)ೇಬ(cid:21) (cid:18)ೇ(cid:22)(cid:17), (cid:23)ಾ(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:25)ಂಟ(cid:28) ಇ(cid:30)ಾ(cid:5)(cid:31) !ೕ"ೆಗಳ(cid:13)(cid:14) %ೈಯ ’ಕ )ಾಧ+ೆಗಳನು- (cid:2)ಾತ! ಪ/ಗ0ಸುವ2ದು 3ಾಗೂ gÁåA ಂ5 ಪಂ6ಾ(cid:5)ವ7ಯ )ಾಧ+ೆಗಳನು- ಪ/ಗ0ಸ8ಾಗುವ2(cid:31)ಲ(cid:14). %ೆ9!(cid:28): / (cid:2)ಾಸ;< !ೕ"ೆಗಳ )ಾಧ+ೆಯನು- ಪ/ಗ0ಸ8ಾಗುವ2(cid:31)ಲ(cid:14). ಏ>?ಾ(cid:28) 3ಾಗೂ ಏ>ಯ @ೆABC 6ೇಶಗಳE ಸಂಘ9ಸುವ !ೕ"ೆಗಳನು- ಪ/ಗ0ಸ8ಾಗುವ2(cid:31)ಲ(cid:14). 8

21. ಪ!ಶA’Gೆ ಪ/ಗ0ಸ8ಾಗುವ !ೕ"ಾ )ಾಧ+ೆಗಳE: Hಾ>Iೕಯ ಮತು’ ಅಂತರHಾ>Iೕಯ ಮಟLದ(cid:13)(cid:14) (cid:2)ಾನ(cid:5)(cid:30)ೆ ಪ"ೆದ !ೕ"ಾ ಸಂ)ೆMಗಳE ಆOೕPAರುವ !ೕ"ಾಕೂಟಗಳ(cid:13)(cid:14) 6ಾಖ8ಾRರ(cid:23)ೇಕು. Sಾತರ ಸTಾUರದ ಯುವ ವ(cid:5)ವ3ಾರ ಮತು’ !ೕ"ಾಸV%ಾಲಯ TಾಲTಾಲTೆ; !ೕ"ಾ ಸಂ)ೆMಗ7Gೆ (cid:22)ೕಡುವ (cid:2)ಾನ(cid:5)(cid:30)ೆಗಳನು- ಆX; ಸಮಯದ(cid:13)(cid:14) ಪ/ಗಣ+ೆGೆ (cid:30)ೆGೆದುTೊಳZ8ಾಗುವ2ದು. !ೕ"ಾ ಸಂ)ೆMಗಳ (cid:2)ಾನ(cid:5)(cid:30)ೆ ಬGೆ[ \%ಾದಗ7ದ](cid:13)(cid:14) !ೕ"ಾಪಟು\Gೆ ಪ!ಶA’ (cid:22)ೕಡುವ ಬGೆ[ ಸTಾUರ (cid:22)ಣUಯªÉ ಅಂ^ಮ

22. KPÀ®ªÀå ¥Àæ±À¹Û ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ಅPU ಸ(cid:13)(cid:14)ಸು^’ರುವ !ೕ"ಾಪಟು ಸ_ತಹ ಕ"ಾaಯ%ಾR ಸb (cid:2)ಾc ದೃeೕಕ/ಸತಕ;ದು] ಈ /ೕw ಸ_ಯಂ ದೃeೕಕರಣ\ಲ(cid:14)ದ ಅPUಗಳನು- ^ರಸ;/ಸ8ಾಗುವ2ದು.

23. ಈ ಮೂರು ಪ!ಮುಖ )ಾಧ+ೆಗಳ ಒ(cid:18)ಾLHೆ ಅಂಕಗಳನು- ಪ/hೕಲ+ಾ ಸ(cid:25)^ ಪ/hೕ(cid:13)A ದೃeಕ/Aದ ನಂತರ ಆX; ಸ(cid:25)^ಯು ಪ!ಶA’Gೆ ಪ/ಗ0ಸತಕ;ದು].” In the said guidelines it was not explicitly indicated with regard to allocation of marks by division of junior and senior. It was indicated that marks would be allotted on the basis of the kind of medals that the participants would get for participation viz., gold, silver and bronze to which different marks are allocated. This has held the field and the petitioner is said to have participated in several tournaments from 2010 and onwards and is said to have won certain medals. The total medals that the petitioner has in his kitty are 145. They are all for participation in National and International Championships. The State then issues guidelines for the years 2012 and 2013 for conferment of medals. Here again 9 what was prevailing in 2010 was taken note of. The marks table in 2014 reads as follows: “Marks Table INTERNATIONAL – (Individual & Team Games) SL Competition 1 Olympics 2 World cup 3 Asian Games 4 Asian Championship 5 Common Wealth Games 6 SAARC/SAF 7 Others (Including Junior) Participation Gold Silver Bronze 100 80 60 55 50 30 20 100 80 60 55 50 40 25 80 60 50 45 40 30 20 60 50 40 45 30 25 15 NATIONAL – (Individual & Team Games) 1 National Games National 2 Sr. 20 15 20 15 15 10 10 5 Championship (Inter State/Federation Cup/Inter Zonal) ¸À»/- («. gÁªÀÄPÀȵÀÚAiÀÄå) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð AiÀÄĪÀ ¸À§°ÃPÀgÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ QæÃqÁ E¯ÁSÉ.” The marks in the tabulation for 2010 and 2014 are quoted only to juxtapose the present problem. In 2014, it appears that senior 10 level National Championship was brought in the marks table. This becomes a subject matter of challenge by this very petitioner in Writ Petition No.49543 of 2014. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing to provide opportunity to all categories of sportsmen who have participated the National Championship and thereafter assessment be made on the number of performances in a tournament in a transparent manner. The coordinate Bench holds as follows: “…. …. ….

4. Though the rival contentions are advanced, taking note of the fact that the instant case relates to the year 2014, consideration of the petitioner's claim for the said year at this juncture would not arise, since the person who was entitled would have already been considered for the said year. The question, however, is whether such notification made would be justified even for the subsequent year. The notification of the earlier period produced at Annexure-C would disclose that consideration will be made from among persons having performed in National Championship(Inter State/Federation cup/Inter Zonal). It was for the first time when the notification was made on 22.07.2014 the word "Senior" was incorporated, thus limiting it to a particular category. In the objection statement, except stating that Junior would have time to achieve, has not referred to any specific distinction made for the change to be effected.

5. The learned Government Advocate during the course of hearing has referred to the order passed in W.P.No.38600/2013 to contend that the change was due to the directions therein. On perusal of the order dated 12.06.2014, in my opinion, this Court has not issued any such direction to the respondents. What has been indicated therein is that the 11 discretion is available with the respondents in conferring award and such discretion should be exercised in an appropriate manner. Therefore, even if the earlier procedure of permitting all Sports persons who have achieved in the field as permitted to apply, it would still open for the respondents to judge their performance based on the medals that they have obtained or laurels achieved and it is only if the persons who have taken part in the Junior Championships have performed much better than the senior persons, the Junior person's claim can be considered for conferring award. Therefore, excluding the petitioner totally from even applying is not justified.

6. Therefore, the respondents are directed to provide opportunity to all the categories of Sportsmen who had participated in the National level Championship to apply if the choose to and thereafter assessment be made based on the number of performance in the tournament in a transparent manner and confer the award.” The result of the aforesaid order is the impugned order. The order is in detail and allocation of marks is as follows: “gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ- (ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄA¥ÀÄ QæÃqÉUÀ¼ÀÄ) PÀæ.¸À ¸ÀàzsÉðUÀ¼ÀÄ 1 2 »jAiÀÄgÀ £ÁåµÀ£À¯ï UÉêÀiïì £ÁåµÀ£À¯ï ZÁA¦AiÀģﶥï (EAlgï ¸ÉÖÃmï/¥sÉqÉgÉõÀ£ï PÀ¥ï/EAlgï eÉÆãÀ¯ï) A£Àß ¨É½î PÀAZÀÄ ¨sÁUÀªÀ»¸ÀÄ«PÉ 40 30 20 30 20 15 30 25 3 D¯ï EArAiÀiÁ EAlgï 20 15 10 AiÀÄƤªÀ¹ðn 4 dƤAiÀÄ£ï £ÁåµÀ£À¯ï (D¯ï EArAiÀiÁ gÀÆgÀ¯ï £ÁåµÀ£À¯ïì/«ªÉÄ£ïì £ÁåµÀ£À¯ïì/ CAVÃPÀÈvÀ 10 8 5 5 3 12 QæÃqÁ ¥sÉqÀgÉõÀ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁåµÀ£À¯ï ¸ÀÆ̯ï UÉêÀiïì £ÀqɸÀĪÀ AiÀÄÄ/19 & AiÀÄÄ/16 QæÃqÉUÀ¼ÀÄ) ¸À»/- 24.08.2015 (f.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ D¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð(¥Àæ) AiÀÄĪÀ ¸À§°ÃPÀgÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ QæÃqÁ E¯ÁSÉ.” What is indicative on a perusal of the chart supra is, a senior participant in National level Championship would get 30 marks if he wins a gold medal, 20 marks for silver and 15 marks for bronze and for participation 25 marks. Column No.4 pertains to junior level nationals viz., All India Rural Nationals or all other championships including under 19 and under 16 sporting events. The junior level National Championship participant even if he wins the gold medal, he would get 10 marks for gold, 8 marks for silver and 5 marks for bronze in comparison to 30, 20 and 15 for senior level National Championship participant. The sporting events are also indicated as both Olympic and non-Olympic. The Chart is as follows: “ಅನುಬಂಧಅನುಬಂಧಅನುಬಂಧಅನುಬಂಧ-1 ಪ/ಗ0ಸ8ಾಗುವ !ೕ"ೆಗಳ !ೕ"ೆಗಳ !ೕ"ೆಗಳ !ೕ"ೆಗಳ \ವರ\ವರ\ವರ\ವರ: ಏಕಲವ(cid:5)ಏಕಲವ(cid:5)ಏಕಲವ(cid:5)ಏಕಲವ(cid:5) ಪ!ಶA’Gೆಪ!ಶA’Gೆಪ!ಶA’Gೆಪ!ಶA’Gೆ ಪ/ಗ0ಸ8ಾಗುವ ಪ/ಗ0ಸ8ಾಗುವ ಪ/ಗ0ಸ8ಾಗುವ !ೕ"ೆಗಳE) ಪ9Lಪ9Lಪ9Lಪ9L-ಎಎಎಎ (ಒಲಂBCಒಲಂBCಒಲಂBCಒಲಂBC !ೕ"ೆಗಳE !ೕ"ೆಗಳE !ೕ"ೆಗಳE 1. CxÉènPïì !ೕ"ೆಗಳE) ಒಲಂBTೇತರ !ೕ"ೆಗಳE ಪ9Lಪ9Lಪ9Lಪ9L-kkkk ( ಒಲಂBTೇತರ !ೕ"ೆಗಳE !ೕ"ೆಗಳE ಒಲಂBTೇತರ ಒಲಂBTೇತರ

1. ¨Ár ©°ØAUï 13

2. ©°AiÀÄqïìð 3. ¨Á¯ï ¨ÁåräAl£ï 4. Zɸï 5. QæPÉmï (¥ÀÄgÀĵÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ»¼É) 6. SÉÆÃ-SÉÆà 7. PÀ§rØ 8. ¥ÀªÀgï °¦üÖAUï 9. ¸ÉÌÃnAUï 10. AiÉÆÃUÀ 11. ¸ÉÆàÃmïìð PÉèöÊA©AUï (ªÁ¯ï PÉèöÊA©AUï) 12. £Émï ¨Á¯ï 13. xÉÆæèÁ¯ï 14. ¸ÁÌ÷éµï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ

2. CZÀðj 3. ¨ÁåräAl£ï 4. ¨Á¸ÉÌmï¨Á¯ï 5. ¨ÁQìAUï 6. ¸ÉÊQèAUï 7. ¥sÀÄmï¨Á¯ï 8. fªÀiÁß¹ÖPï 9. ºÁQ(¥ÀÄgÀĵÀ ªÀÄ»¼É) 10. ºÁåAqï¨Á¯ï 11. dÄqÉÆà 12. ±ÀÆnAUï 13. gÉÆìÄAUï 14. FdÄ (qÉÊ«AUï ¸ÉÃj) 15. ¯Á£ï mɤ߸ï 16. mÉÃPÁéAqÉÆà 17. læAiÀÄvÁè£ï 18. ªÁ°¨Á¯ï 19. ¨sÁgÀ JvÀÄÛ«PÉ 20. ¥sɤìAUï 21. FPÉéùÖçÃAiÀÄ£ï 22. ªÁlgï ¸ÉÆàÃmïÖð (PÀAiÀiÁQAUï, PÉ£ÉÆìÄAUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉðAUï)

23. gÀVâ 24. PÀÄ¹Û 25. UÁ¯ïá 26. mÉç¯ï mÉ¤ß¸ï ¸À»/- 24.08.2015. (f.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà) ಸTಾUರದ ಅlೕನ TಾಯUದhU(¥Àæ), ಯುವ ಸಬ(cid:13)ೕಕರಣ ಮತು’ !ೕ"ಾ ಇ8ಾmೆ.” The sport of the petitioner comes under non-Olympic sporting event as he is said to be a roller skating champion. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted, then every sporting event should bear the 14 same marks whether it is junior or senior which would result in serious anomaly.

8. The petitioner is a roller skating champion and the roller skating is a non-Olympic event. Senior or junior who participates in Olympic events would be given higher recognition. The differentiation of List-A and List-B qua Olympic and non-Olympic sporting events is not under challenge. What is challenged is bifurcation as senior and junior. In the considered view of this Court, no fault can be found with the bifurcation of marks qua senior or junior. The level of participation and the rigour of such participation of senior level National Championship is undoubtedly different from a junior level National Championship. It is on the basis of preparation and players contribution to the game, the marks are allocated. If both the eggs are put in the same basket it would get scrambled and it cannot be unscrambled for the purpose of conferment of Ekalavya awards.

9. The contention of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent modified the guidelines and called for fresh applications for 15 conferment of the award in the year 2014. The submission is that it is willfully kept away from consideration of junior level National Championships by increasing the marks of senior level National Championships by 100% and awarding nominal marks for juniors and the resultant submission is that, marking scheme is only an eye wash. These are the submissions on the impugned guidelines. As observed hereinabove, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on bifurcation of marks for the purpose of conferment of the award. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not sit in the arm chair of experts and decide the marks to be allotted for a sporting event, despite such marks being awarded pursuant to the opinion of experts. This Court would be loathe to peep into such opinion of experts, unless it is arbitrary and such arbitrariness is palpable and demonstrable, which is absent in the case at hand.

10. It becomes apposite to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court and that of other High Courts qua judicial review with the opinion of selection committee, particularly of sporting events 16 and conferment of awards on such sporting events. The Apex Court in the case of TAJVIR SINGH SODHI v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1 has held as follows: “Selection Process for Public Employment : Interference by Courts:

65. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to preface our judgment with the view that Courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of importance of public employment, recognising the maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The Courts recognise that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropriate for Courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a selection board. The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law: