LI Network
Published on: December 11, 2023 at 09:40 IST
The Bombay High Court, in a recent verdict, upheld the eligibility criteria for sports coaches set by the Directorate of Sports and Youth Services.
The court dismissed a writ petition filed by sports coaches Dadaso Balaso Awad and Yogesh Prakash More, challenging the advertisement that allowed degree holders in Physical Education and State-level sportspersons to apply for Sports Coach positions.
A division bench comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain rejected the petitioners’ plea, asserting that the court cannot rewrite the conditions of eligibility or deal with the issue of equivalence.
The court emphasized that determining eligibility falls within the domain of the expert body, and judicial interference in such matters is impermissible.
The petitioners, who hold diplomas in Sports Coaching from the Netaji Subhash National Institute of Sports (NIS), Patiala, contested the July 19, 2023, advertisement for 50 sports coach vacancies.
They argued that the qualifications allowing degree holders and State-level sportspersons to compete were arbitrary and discriminatory.
The petitioners advocated for eligibility based solely on a diploma in Sports Coaching or international/national sports achievements.
Highlighting a perceived disparity between Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) degree holders and NIS diploma holders, the petitioners argued that BPE courses focus on general sports training, while the NIS diploma provides specific technical and practical coaching experience.
The state countered, stating that the qualifications were determined by sports authorities considered experts in the field. They contended that judicial interference in matters within the domain of experts was unwarranted, justifying the qualifications as necessary for candidates with training in physical education and sports.
The court noted that the petitioners did not challenge the decision-making process but the decision itself. It affirmed that the Directorate of Sports and Youth Services, as the expert body, had the authority to decide qualifications based on employer needs and work nature.
The court stressed it could not substitute its decision for that of the employer or delve into questions of equivalence.
Citing legal precedents, such as Anand Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., the court emphasized the importance of leaving matters of education to experts and cautioned against judicial interference. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petitioners’ contentions and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Dadaso Balaso Awad and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.