Court Cannot Rewrite Criteria Set By Expert Body: Bombay High Court Upholds Physical Education Degree Holders' Eligibility As Sports Coaches

The Bombay High Court recently upheld an advertisement by Directorate of Sports and Youth Services allowing degree holders in Physical Education and State-level sportspersons to compete for the Sports Coach positions.A division bench comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by sports coaches Dadaso Balaso Awad and Yogesh Prakash More praying that only diploma holders from NIS should be considered for the post of Sports Coach.“This Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it deal with the issue of whether the desirable qualifications is on par with the prescribed other qualification. This would amount to re-writing the advertisement by the Court which is not permissible. Question of equivalence/non-equivalence will also fall outside the domain of the Court”, the court held.The petitioners, diploma holders in Sports Coaching from Netaji Subhash National Institute of Sports (NIS), Patiala, challenged the advertisement published on July 19, 2023, for sports coaches for 50 vacancies published by the Directorate of Sports and Youth Services.The petitioners argued that the qualifications, which allowed degree holders in Physical Education and State-level sportspersons to compete for the sports coach positions, were arbitrary and discriminatory. They contended that only candidates holding a diploma in Sports Coaching and those who are international or national sportspersons in a specific sport should be eligible for the posts.The petitioners argued that there is a disparity between candidates holding a Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) and those with a diploma in Sports Coaching from NIS. They argued that BPE candidates are eligible to be appointed as teacher in schools and colleges courses. BPE courses focus on soft skills and general sports training, while the NIS diploma offers specific technical and practical coaching experience, they argued. The petitioners claimed that equating these qualifications was unjust and violated Article 16 of the Constitution, prejudicing those with a diploma.The state contended that the qualifications were determined by sports authorities, considered experts in the field. They argued that judicial interference in policy decisions and matters within the domain of experts was unwarranted. They justified the qualifications, stating that they required candidates to have training in physical education and sports.The court noted that the Petitioners are not challenging the decision-making process but the decision itself, as they have not claimed that the Directorate of Sports and Youth Services is not authorised or lacks jurisdiction for prescribing the qualification.The court asserted that the Directorate of Sports and Youth Services, as the expert body, had the authority to decide qualifications based on the needs of the employer and the nature of the work. The court emphasized that it could not substitute its decision for that of the employer or delve into questions of equivalence.The court noted that the expert body has prescribed the qualification for the post of sports coach and the candidates possessing the qualification prescribed are related to sports in one way or the other. The petitioners, except stating that they are qualified for the post, have not shown that the other qualifications are not at all relevant for the post, the court observed.The court cited various precedents such as Anand Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., where the Supreme Court emphasized that matters of education should be left to experts, and judicial review must tread cautiously. The court iterated that it was not for the judiciary to decide the requisite qualifications for a post; instead, it deferred to the expertise of the employer.Thus, the court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioners' contentions. Advocates Shekhar Jagtap, Sairuchita Chowdhary and Ishan Paradkar i/by M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. represented the Petitioners. AGP NC Walimbe represented the State.Case no. – Writ Petition No.12592 of 2023Case Title – Dadaso Balaso Awad and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Court Cannot Rewrite Criteria Set By Expert Body: Bombay High Court Upholds Physical Education Degree Holders' Eligibility As Sports Coaches

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags