The Court observed that mere appointment of a Government employee by a National Sports Federation does not confer an enforceable right to seek a No Objection Certificate, relieving order or permission to travel abroad.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association against the Union Territory authorities in relation to the services of a Government employee appointed as Chief Coach of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team for the preparatory programme leading to the Asian Games, 2026.

The matter was considered along with an intra-Court appeal against an interim order directing provisional permission for the assignments and a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with that order.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice (Acting) Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani observed,

“Merely because respondent No.3 has been nominated by the petitioner-Association for the aforesaid assignments does not, by itself, confer upon her an enforceable legal right to claim a direction from this Court for issuance of a No Objection Certificate, relieving order or permission to travel abroad.”

The Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association, a National Sports Federation, appointed respondent No.3 as Chief Coach of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team for the preparatory programme leading to the Asian Games, 2026, citing her merit, experience and expertise. It thereafter requested the Director General, Youth Services and Sports, J&K, to relieve her so that she could join the National Coaching Camp.

The Association also stated that she had been invited to officiate as Chief Finish Line Judge at the 2026 ICF Canoe Sprint World Cup in Hungary. It alleged that failure to relieve her was affecting the preparation of the Indian team and further relied upon the case of another coach who had allegedly been relieved for a similar international assignment.

The Government opposed the petition, contending that respondent No.3 continued to be a Government employee governed by the applicable Conduct Rules, service rules and Government instructions regulating foreign travel and outside engagements. It was also pointed out that a departmental inquiry concerning unauthorised foreign visits and other service-related issues was pending and requisite vigilance clearance had not been obtained.

The Association alleged that the denial of permission was arbitrary and discriminatory, while the respondents maintained that foreign travel and deputation were subject to applicable rules and administrative discretion and did not constitute vested rights.

Court's Observation:

The Division Bench held that respondent No.3, being a permanent Government employee, remained subject to the service rules governing her employment. Her appointment by the Sports Federation did not override those conditions or create an enforceable right to be relieved from Government service, it underscored.

The Court treated the proposed arrangement essentially as one of deputation and observed that the Sports Federation, as a borrowing organisation, could not compel the lending Government to spare the services of its employee. The Court observed,

“It is difficult to comprehend that a borrowing department can compel the employer to spare the services of its employee for utilisation thereof in sporting activities of national or international repute.”

The Court acknowledged respondent No.3's contribution to sports but also took note of the record showing instances of foreign travel without prior permission and the pending departmental proceedings. It held that professional achievements could not override the discipline applicable to a Government servant.

The Bench further noted the absence of an enforceable framework framed by the Ministry of Sports and the Sports Authority of India governing the lending of services of Government employees to National Sports Federations. In such circumstances, the Federation could not dictate terms to the Government to necessarily spare its employee, the court emphasised.

On the question of mandamus, the Court held that such a writ can be issued only for enforcement of a legal, statutory or public duty where a corresponding legal right exists. Deputation, it observed, depends upon the consent and administrative discretion of the lending authority and the borrowing organisation, subject to the applicable rules. The Court held,

“no right vests in the borrowing Organisation/Federation to requisition the services of an employee, that too without the consent of his/her employer, unless such course is supported by a statutory provision.”

The Court nevertheless recognised the broader difficulty faced by National Sports Federations in securing the services of outstanding Government-employed sportspersons. It observed that the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Services and Sports, along with the Sports Authority of India, should devise a policy providing clear guidelines for such arrangements.

Examining the particular decision, the Court found that the competent authority had considered the request in light of the pending departmental inquiry, vigilance clearance requirements and applicable Government instructions before declining permission through Government Order.

The Bench reiterated that judicial review under Article 226 is concerned primarily with the legality of the decision-making process and not with substituting the Court's view for that of the competent authority. It found no material establishing arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality or violation of a statutory right.

The plea of discrimination was also rejected, as the Court held that Article 14 requires the persons relied upon for comparison to be similarly situated in all material particulars.

The High Court thus dismissed the writ petition, holding that neither the Sports Federation nor respondent No.3 had established an enforceable legal right warranting a writ of mandamus. It found no ground to interfere with the Government's decision and vacated the interim order.

The Court, however, directed the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Services and Sports, to formulate a statutory or otherwise enforceable framework governing deputation of outstanding sportspersons employed by the Central Government, State Governments, Union Territories or Public Sector Undertakings to recognised National Sports Federations, so that their services may be made available in time for national and international sporting events.

Case Title: Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v. UT of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)326

Appearances:

Najmi Waziri, Senior Advocate with Arbaaz Khan, Advocate for the petitioner/Association.

Faheem Nissar Shah, Government Advocate for the Union Territory.

Khawaja Siddiqui, Advocate for respondent No.2 in LPA No.173/2026.

Click here to read/download Judgment