Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sujesh K V vs D/O Post on 7 March, 2024
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00905/2016
&
Original Application No.180/00393/2017
Thursday this the 7th day of March 2024
CO RAM :
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Original Application No.180/00905/2016
1. Isac Antony M.G., 24 years,
Manglath House, Ochinthuruth P.O.,
Ernakulam - 682 508.
2. Vineesh.P.D., 33 years,
S/o.Dinesan, Pattaruparambil,
Laidharam P.O., North Parur, Ernakulam. ...Applicants
(By Advocates Mr.M.R.Hariraj & Mr.Naved Prasannan)
versus
1. Union of India,
represented by Secretary,
Ministry of Communication & Information Technology,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. The Assistant Director Recruitment,
Office of the Chief Post Master General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
-2-
4. Shri.Arun.R.R.,
Postal Assistant,
C/o.Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kollam Division, Kollam - 691 871.
5. Shri.Varghese Thomas.K.,
Postal Assistant,
C/o.Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kollam Division, Kollam - 691 871.
6. Shri.Nahas.N.,
Postal Assistant,
C/o.Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Trivandrum North Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
7. Arun.R.V.,
Postman,
C/o.Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Ernakulam Division, Ernakulam - 682 011.
8. Shri.Omar Shereef.K.B.,
Postman,
C/o.Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Aluwa Division, Ernakulam District - 682 011. ...Respondents
(By Advocates Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Sr.PC [R1-3],
Mr.Harikumar.G [R-4], Mrs.Amrutha Vidyadharan [R-5],
Mr.S.Abhilash [R-6] & M/s.Lal.K.Joseph & Mr.Suresh Kumar [R-8])
Original Application No.180/00393/2017
Sujeesh.K.V.,
Vijayan.K.K., Aged 35 years,
Residing at Kottakal Parambil,
Cherthala, Alappuzha - 688 524. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mrs.Rekha Vasudevan)
versus
-3-
1. Union of India,
represented by the Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Department of Posts, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Department of Posts, Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. The Assistant Director (Rectt.),
Office of the Chief Post Master General,
Department of Posts, Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
4. Shri.Arun.R.R.,
Postal Assistant,
C/o.Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kollam Division, Kollam - 691 871.
5. Shri.Varghese Thomas.K.,
Postal Assistant,
C/o.Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kollam Division, Kollam - 691 871.
6. Shri.Nahas.N.,
Postal Assistant,
C/o.Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Trivandrum North Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
7. Shri.Omar Shereef.K.B.,
Postman,
C/o.Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Aluwa Division, Ernakulam District - 682 011. ...Respondents
(By Advocates Mr.V.A.Shaji, ACGSC [R-1-3],
Mr.Harikumar.G [R-4], Mrs.Amrutha Vidyadharan [R-5] &
Mr.S.Abhilash [R-6])
-4-
These applications having been heard on 12 th January, 2024 the
Tribunal on 7th March 2024 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The O.A.No.180/905/2016 was filed on 28.10.2016 by two applicants who were aggrieved by the Sports Quota selection by the Chief Post Master General (CPMG), Kerala Circle under the discipline of Kabaddi (Male). Similarly, the O.A.No.180/393/2017 has been filed on 19.05.2017 by a single applicant who is also aggrieved by his own non selection in the same circumstances. In both the O.As the applicants are aggrieved that the official respondents selected the four respondents Shri.Arun.R.R., Shri.Varghese Thomas.K, and Shri.Nahas.N as Postal Assistants and Shri.Omar Shereef K.B as Postman. They are aggrieved as well by the appointments of these candidates in various Postal Divisions under the Kerala Circle. In O.A.No.180/905/2016 these four respondents appear at Sl.Nos.4, 5, 6 & 8. The respondent at Sl.No.7 one Shri.Arun.R.V had also been selected in preference to the applicants as Postman. However, since he had not accepted the appointment, he has accordingly not contested the O.As.
-5-
2. The impugned appointment order dated 18.08.2016 appointing the respondents at Sl.Nos.4 to 8 has been produced at Annexure A-11 in O.A.No.180/905/2016. The statements/pleadings in O.A.No.180/905/2016, which have been entered into by all the respondents as well as the applicants, will primarily considered while arriving at our own conclusions in the matter. It is submitted that the entire process of recruitment of meritorious sports person by the Department of Posts of the Kerala Circle under the CPMG, Thiruvananthapuram (2nd respondent) had been undertaken on the basis of the notification dated 10.09.2012, produced at Annexure A-1. This notification had invited applications from meritorious sportsmen in certain specified sporting disciplines including Kabaddi for appointment as Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant (PA/SA) and Postman in the Department of Posts against the vacancies for the years 2004 to 2010 under the Sports Quota in the Kerala Postal Circle. The number of vacancies for Kabaddi (Men) was shown as 8. It was also indicated in the notification that meritorious sports candidates would be selected for appointment, based on the instructions contained in the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) O.M.No.14015/1/76-Estt.(D) dated 04.08.1980 -6- as amended from time to time. The selection would be based on the following Order of Preference and on performance in the Selection Trials :
First Preference : The candidates who have represented the country in an INTERNATIONAL competition with the clearance of the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports.
Second Preference : The candidates who have represented and won medals or positions up to third place in the Senior or Junior Level National Championships organized by the recognised Sports Federations or National Games organised by the Indian Olympic Association. Between the Senior and Junior Levels, candidates who have won the medal in the Senior National Championship will get preference.
Third Preference : The candidates who have represented a University in an Inter-University competition conducted by the Association of Indian Universities/Inter-University Sports Board and have won medals or positions up to the third place in finals. Fourth Preference : The candidates who have represented the State Schools in the National Sports/Games for Schools conducted by the All India School Federation and have won medals or positions up to the third place.
Fifth Preference : The candidates who have been awarded a National Award in physical efficiency under the National Physical Efficiency Drive.
Sixth Preference : The candidates who have represented a State/Union Territory/University/State School Teams at the Levels (II) to (IV) above but could not win a medal or position in the same order of preference.-7-
3. Further to the above it was also indicated in the notification that the age limits for the vacancies of PA/SA was 18 to 27 years as on 10.10.2012, with an age relaxation of 5 years for SC/ST candidates. Similarly, the age limits for the Postman vacancies was indicated as 18 to 27 years as on 10.10.2012, with a 5 years age relaxation for SC/ST candidates. In addition to this, further age relaxation upto 5 years (10 years for SC/ST candidates) would be available for meritorious sportsmen in both the above categories. Another important criteria indicated in the notification under paragraph 4 was in respect of the educational qualifications. It was indicated that for PA/SA posts, the candidates would have to have the 10+2 Standard or 12 th Class pass, with at least 60% marks, from a recognised University/Board of School Education/Board of Secondary Education with English as a compulsory subject (excluding vocational streams). This was relaxed to 55% for Other Backward Classes and 45% for SC/ST. Also candidates would have to have studied Malayalam or Hindi as a subject, at least in Matriculation or equivalent. For the post of Postman, however, a simple pass in Matriculation from a recognized Board/University was indicated as the required qualification. Further, at paragraph 7 it was also -8- inter-alia indicated that a prescribed community certificate in respect of SC/ST/OBC should also be attached with the application as an attested copy.
4. It is submitted that the above Annexure A-1 notification had been issued for filling up 32 posts of PA/SA and 20 posts of Postman, of which as noted earlier, Kabaddi was one of the disciplines for which 8 posts were earmarked for men only. The candidates would be considered as per the preference indicated in the notification as brought out earlier. It is submitted that the 1 st applicant in the O.A.No.180/905/2016 had basic qualification of 10+2, which he had acquired in 2009. His date of birth being 25.11.1991, he was aged 21 years on the date of the Annexure A-1 notification. The applicant submits that he is also from the OBC category. He has produced his SSLC certificate to establish his age, his 10+2 certificate to prove his qualification and a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kochi to prove his community. Similarly, the 2 nd applicant in O.A.No.180/905/2016, who is a matriculate with date of birth being 19.05.1983 also belonged to the OBC community. He submits that he was entitled for a age relaxation up to 3 years as an OBC candidate as per the Recruitment Rules. He too has produced a copy of his School -9- Leaving Certificate with mark list along as well as his Community Certificate. It is submitted that the 1 st applicant had applied for the post of PA and the 2nd applicant for the post of Postman only. They were invited on the basis of their applications for the posts for verification of their certificates. They were later also called for the Selection Trials as provided for in the notification. It is submitted that these trials were conducted on 19.05.2013. According to the applicants they had come out 'successful' in them. The applicants submit that this was so as they still 'play' for the State. They also have a good track record by participating in as many as 6 to 7 national events representing the State. It is also submitted that they had learnt that after the trial was concluded, a Selection List was prepared. As per this list, the 2 applicants were 'understood to have been included' at the top by considering their higher number of 'participations' in national events in comparison to others.
5. Similarly, the O.A.No.180/393/2017, is filed by the single applicant who is aggrieved by the same order dated 08.08.2016, issued by the 3rd respondent, Assistant Director Recruitment, Office of the CPMG, Kerala by which the Respondents at Sl.Nos.4 to 7 had been appointed as PA and Postman against the Sports Quota in the discipline -10- of Kabaddi. This applicant too is also a member of the Other Backward Class (OBC). He submits that he too was entitled to an age relaxation of 3 years. He was 30 years old and was thus within the age limits prescribed in the Annexure A-1 notification (as the OBC candidates were provided an age relaxation of up to 3 years) as on 10.09.2012, the date of the notification inviting applications. What the candidates in both the O.As have basically alleged is that the private respondents named earlier are demonstrably less meritorious than them. It is alleged that they have been selected on extraneous considerations. It is also submitted that there are instances of selection of 'age barred persons' after submission of false dates of birth. It is also alleged that the entire selection is vitiated, as it was done with malice, favoritism and extraneous including monetary considerations, which have resulted in more meritorious sports persons being ignored and brushed aside from consideration.
6. It is submitted that soon after the Selection Trials were conducted on 19.05.2013, the respondents could not declare the results immediately since one Shri.Sarun Das H., had moved this Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1265/2015. Shri.Sarun Das H alleged that some over aged persons were being included in the select list. All the applicants in these -11- two O.As were arrayed as the respondents in the said O.A. The O.A was finally disposed of by an order produced at Annexure A-10 in the light of the submissions made by the Sr.PCGC that the respondents would abide by the age limits prescribed in the Annexure A-1 notification and in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 21.05.2007 in Annexure R-4(a) therein. The respondents were accordingly allowed to conduct the selection and to take further action in the light of this. Hence, the orders were issued only on 21.01.2016, almost three years after the Selection Trials had been conducted. This was then followed by the order of the respondents dated 18.08.2016 produced at Annexure A-11 in O.A.No.180/905/2016 by which five private respondent were selected for the posts of PA/Postman, in preference to the three applicants in these two O.As.
7. Over the period of pendency of these cases in this Tribunal in these two O.As, various issues have been highlighted by the applicants to make their points. Some important and relevant issues were brought up much after the O.A was filed by way of rejoinders/M.As etc., in response to the replies filed by the respondents, both official as well as private. However, as per the pleadings in the original O.As filed by the two sets -12- of applicants, the main line taken by them was that they possessed much better 'merit' as sportsmen in the Kabaddi discipline as compared to the selected respondents. This was sought to be established by them on the basis of the sheer number of 'participation' certificates. It was sought to be proved that the Respondents at Sl.Nos.4 to 8 in O.A.No.180/905/2016 had participated only in not more than 3 national level events/championships/games, whereas, the applicants in the O.A.No.180/905/2016 had represented the State more than 6 to 8 times, including in the National Games. Similarly, the applicant in O.A.No.180/393/2017 sought to establish that he had participated and was continuing to participate representing the State of Kerala in various competitions held at the national level. In other words, the applicants submit that they had a higher level of participation or representation in the national or senior level events when compared to the party respondents. It was submitted that there should be no reason for the private respondents to have been considered superior to them in terms of merit in the sport of Kabaddi. The applicant in O.A.No.180/393/2017 further submitted that from an RTI Application he had got the information that the selection of the private respondents had not been based on any proper procedure, as no marks were allotted to any -13- candidates in the Selection Trials after which the respondents were selected and termed superior to others who have participated. It was alleged by him that the Order of Preference laid down in the Annexure A-1 notification had thus been ignored. The selection process for Kabaddi had been carried out without following any norms and as per the whims and fancies of the official respondents Nos.1-3. The applicants in both O.As have also produced a copy of these participation certificates etc., at the Annexure A-5 series in the case of 1 st applicant and Annexure A-8 series in the case of 2 nd applicant in O.A.No.180/905/2016 and Annexure A-3 series in the case of the applicant in O.A.No.180/393/2017.
8. Hence, the original first ground for consideration brought out in both the O.As was simply to evaluate comparative merit in the sport of Kabaddi between the candidates. It was indicated that if this Tribunal examined and counted their participation certificates, just the difference in number between them and the respondents would prove that the level of participation of all the applicants in both the O.As at the national/senior or other levels was superior to all the respondents who were selected. In addition to this, the applicants in -14- O.A.No.180/905/2016 also made certain additional averments in relation to the 8th respondent therein, (the 7th respondent in the other O.A.No.180/393/2017) Shri.Omar Shereef.K.B. It was submitted that this 8th respondent is quite over aged as he had crossed the maximum age limit of 27 years on the crucial date. This was sought to be evidenced by the certificates produced by the said applicants at Annexure A-12 in O.A.No.180/905/2016 which showed that the date of birth of the 8 th respondent was 11.02.1980. This meant that he was already 32 years old on the crucial date stipulated in the Annexure A-1 notification.
9. At this stage we feel that in order to bring forth clearly all the arguments entered into by both sides and to consider them systematically, we may group them under broad themes, rather than chronologically summarize the pleadings of both sides. This is important as during the course of pleadings more and more new contentions and lines of arguments were adduced or removed from the original tack taken in the O.A. These are indicated accordingly in what follows :
10. Comparative Merit and Ability in the sport of Kabaddi and in Educational Qualifications and Status of Community Classification : -15-
The applicants in both the O.As have sought to establish, as we noted earlier their superior abilities in the sport of Kabaddi as compared to the private respondents. This was on the basis of mostly the sheer number of times of participation at the highest level, ie., national/senior levels in the sport. It is submitted by them that since they had participated in many more such events in the national level and were continuing to participate in the same, they should be considered overall superior in terms of merit and ability in Kabaddi. We have noted that the applicants in both O.As have given copies of a number of such participation certificates in both the O.As as a part of the annexures therein.
10.1 The official respondents as well as the private respondents have sought to counter this contention by bringing forth another series of participation certificates etc., from their side establishing the levels of participation in such events by the selected candidates ie., the private respondents. The idea appears to prove that the respondents are superiors to the applicants if not equal. In their first reply statement, the official respondents had made a few points to establish this 'higher merit' status of the selected candidates. They submitted at the outset that the 1 st applicant in the O.A.No.180/905/2016 had not produced his properly -16- prescribed community certificate as required. Hence, he was treated as an UR candidate and not as an OBC candidate. Since his 10+2/12 th Standard marks were only 56.50% and he had not got 60%, he could only be considered for the post of Postman and not Postal Assistant. Further, the 2nd applicant had only passed the SSLC level and was thus considered against the vacancies in the post of Postman. As regards the applicant in the O.A.No.180/393/2017, he had secured only 37.88% in the 10+2/12 th Standard against the 55% cut off required for the selection of OBC candidates for the Postal Assistant (PA) category. Thus, if at all, he could only have been considered against the post of Postman. It was submitted by the official respondents that the first 2 selected candidates in the Postman category were considered under the 1 st preferential category in the Order of Preference shown in the Annexure A-1 notification. This 1 st category related to participation and securing position in an international competition with the clearance of the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports. The other selected candidates fell within the 2 nd preferential category which relates to representing and winning medals or positions up to third place in the Senior or Junior Level National Championships organized by the recognized Sports Federations or National Games organized by the Indian Olympic Association.-17-
10.2 The respondents then gave details in respect of selected 5 candidates selected in the open competition. This was given in the format of a table showing the preferential category as well as the percentage of marks obtained in +2. This was indicated in the reply statement in O.A.No.180/393/2017 as under :
Sl. Name and designation of Community Preferential % of marks No. candidate selected category in Plus Two Arun.R.V., Postman, OBC First 51.33 (+2) 1 Ernakulam Omar Shereef.K.B, OBC First SSLC 2 Postman, Aluva Arun.K.R., Postal UR Second 65.66 (+2) 3 Assistant, Kollam Varghese Thomas K, UR Second 79.91(+2) 4 Postal Assistant, Kollam Nahas.N, Postal Assistant, UR Second 60.75(+2) 5 Trivandrum North It is submitted that the 1 st applicant in the O.A.No.180/905/2016 Shri.Isac Antony.M.G., had participated in the National Senior in January, 2011 and December 2011 and in the National School Games, 2007. He had not produced the Non-Creamy Layer certificate required for OBC candidates and hence no concession could be given to him.-18-
Similarly, Shri.Nahas.N among the list of selected candidates was also treated as an UR candidate in spite of claiming OBC status. The 1 st applicant, Shri.Isac Antony.M.G having only secured 56.5% marks could at best be considered against the post of Postman. However, it was seen that two candidates (Shri.Arun.R.V and Shri.Omar Shereef K.B) had international experience and also were having high positions as winners. Hence the applicant did not come into the selection zone and these two candidates were selected. As far as the 2nd applicant in O.A,No.180/905/2016 Shri.Vineesh.P.D was concerned, he had produced his Non Creamy Layer certificate. He was thus considered in the OBC category. However, since he had only the qualification of SSLC, he too could be considered only against the Postman category. In this category, as was noted in the case of the 1 st applicant in the O.A.No.180/905/2016, the selected candidates were international medal winners/players. Hence this applicant too could not come into the selection zone. In other words, the 1st applicant was considered under the UR category for the post of Postal Assistant, having passed the 10+2. However, he did not qualify as he did not secure the minimum 60% marks in his 10+2 examination required for the UR category. The 2 nd applicant had not even studied the 10+2. Given this, both applicants at best could be -19- considered for the Postman post only. The 2 selected candidates with international certificates and positions were obviously more meritorious than them.
10.3 It is submitted that the concessions given by the Central Government for OBC candidates in age, educational qualifications etc., also depend on whether they can produce in time the OBC certificate required in the prescribed format signed by the Tahsildar. When such a certificate is not attached, the concession cannot be extended. Though Shri.Isac Antony, the 1st applicant in O.A.No.180/905/2016 produced his OBC community certificate at Annexure A-4, he could not be considered as entitled to OBC concession, since Tahsildar did not issue the prescribed Non Creamy Layer certificate to him as per the prescribed format. Hence it cannot be accepted as per rule and procedure even though the OBC certificate produced by him had an undertaking at the bottom that it was issued for job purposes, in the last paragraph. Whatever be the case, it is submitted by the respondents that even from the comparative merit evaluation in Kabaddi taken of the selected 3 candidates for the post of Postal Assistant (ie., Respondent Nos.4 to 6), the 1st applicant was not in any case as meritorious as them. As already -20- noted, he could neither be considered meritorious for the post of Postman since the 2 selected candidates ie., Respondent Nos.7 and 8 were both international medal winners/players.
10.4 It is further submitted by the respondents in relation to the matter of comparative merit in the game of Kabaddi that many of the certificates produced in the Annexure A-5 series by the 1 st applicant in O.A.No.180/905/2016 such as Annexure A-5, A-5(c), A-5(e), A-5(f), A-5(i), A-5(k), A-5(l), A-5(m) and A-5(n) were not attached with the actual application of the 1 st applicant. He appears to have produced these documents only in the O.A. Further, while last date of receipt of the applications was 10.10.2012 the Annexure A-5(k) Senior National Kabaddi Participation Certificate was issued later to that date. In the case of the 2nd applicant it is more clear, as he was at best only eligible for the post of Postman, which were actually filled up by 2 international medal winners/players. In addition to this, the respondents also submit that the contention that some initial Select List was prepared in which the applicants were at the top considering their allegedly larger number of participation certificates is a baseless and whimsical statement. It is also submitted that the Selection Trials had been conducted largely for -21- examining the physical fitness of the candidates. The final selection was made strictly as per the Order of Preference mentioned in the notification subject to the fulfillment of the notified age, educational and community qualifications. Further, the notification was issued in 2012 and the selection process had been completed by 2013 itself. The results could however not be announced due to the litigation caused by the filing of O.A.No.446/2013 by Shri.Sarun Das. The first phase of selection was thus completed for some of the other disciplines in 2014, whereas for the Kabaddi discipline, it could be done only after the disposal of the said O.A vide the Annexure A-10 order dated 21.01.2016.
10.5 It is also submitted by the respondents that the averment of the applicants that the Respondent Nos.4 to 8 have participated in not more than 3 nationals is not correct. This is established by the details given in the reply statement by the respondents as well as in terms of the participation certificates produced by them in the annexures. Further, the applicants had also alleged that the 8 th respondent, Shri.Omar Shereef.K.B., was over aged in terms of the Annexure A-1 notification. It is submitted that this contention is incorrect if the age specific and sporting concessions available for OBC candidates in direct recruitment -22- quotas are accounted. The respondents have attached the SSLC certificate of Shri.Omar Shereef K.B in their reply statement at Annexure R-15 in O.A.No.180/905/2016 which establishes his date of birth as 11.02.1980. Further, Shri.Omar Shereef.K.B., had also produced the OBC certificate in the prescribed format showing that he belonged to the Non Creamy Layer. He was thus eligible for the age concession of 3 years for OBC candidates. In addition, he was also eligible to a 5 years concession, which was also indicated in the Annexure A-1 notification, meant for meritorious sports person. Thus, it is submitted that in total Shri.Omar Shereef K.B was eligible for a 8 year age concession and had been considered accordingly. It is submitted that the same concession was given uniformly to all OBC candidates, who had produced the prescribed certificates in time.
10.6 Similar reply statements outlining matters of educational and skill qualifications were filed by the private respondents in both the O.As. The main contention taken by them is that the participation certificates produced along with their reply statements establishes that they are to be placed much above the applicants. This is also the case academically as well in addition to the sports criteria as notified by the respondents. It is -23- submitted by these respondents that the appointment was to be made, based on the credentials of the candidate as a sportsperson on the date of application ie., 10.10.2012 combined with performance in the Selection Trials. It has also been further set out in the Annexure A-1 notification that in case of similarly placed candidates, preference would be given to recent performances. Hence, a more current participation in events is to be considered as an additional qualification. It is submitted that all the selected respondents had scored much above the applicants in this regard. It is submitted that some of them were also taking part for the selections of the Kerala Postal Team for Kabaddi. All this shows that they were more eligible and meritorious than the applicants. Further it is pointed out that most of the certificates of participation produced by the applicants in the O.A.No.180/905/2016 pertain to the period after the Annexure A-1 notification. Hence, they are to be taken as irrelevant, as the performance of the candidates on the date of notification alone can be considered for selection. Subsequent performance at best can only be considered as an additional qualification for a tie breaker. Thus, the averment that the Respondent Nos.4 to 8 have participated in not more than 3 nationals, while the applicants have represented in more than 6 to 8 events was false and denied. The applicants had only -24- brought certificates of participation pertaining to the period after the relevant period of notification and these cannot be taken into consideration.
10.7 The above contentions in regard to educational, age, community qualifications as well as skill in the sport of Kabaddi have been carefully considered. On reflection we cannot accept the averments of the applicants in both the O.As. First of all, we observe that given the popularity and general ability in a sports discipline like Kabaddi in the State of Kerala, it is not surprising to us that the vast majority of the certificates produced by both sides ie., by the applicants as well as by the private respondents, in both the O.As pertain only to the level of 'participation'. There are hardly any certificates produced establishing the winning of medals or securing of positions up to third rank. This could have possibly enabled a more objective consideration of the skill levels of the applicants and the respondents. We note that a simple representation or participation at the Senior/Junior or University/State School or even National level which is what everyone in these cases touts as singular achievements does not establish comparative merit in abilities between different candidates. In fact, the entire selection -25- procedure at least for the discipline of Kabaddi in the selection would have to be considered largely under the 6 th preference in the Order of Preference as per the Annexure A-1 notification. Hence, in other words, it appears that comparative positions and abilities are being considered among a group of more or less average Kabaddi players, when considered from a more standard point of view. Thus, we cannot fault the respondents for not purely taking weight of the sheer number of participation certificates produced by these candidates and then only selecting those with higher weights due to participation. They have rightly, to our mind, gone in for a more composite selection process, which has taken into account whatever ability was exhibited in the sports of Kabaddi, along with emphasis on merit, educational as well as performance in the Selection Trials. This kind of process conducted by the respondents as long as it was done openly and had not been questioned in time by all concerned cannot be termed arbitrary or an eyewash. The non selection of some individuals cannot be made out as something malafide or irrational or discriminatory just because some did not make it. At the end of the day, as has been laid down by superior courts in a catena of cases, all that the participants had was a right to be considered for selection but no right to be selected. We do not think that -26- the applicants, at least in terms of their comparative merit or ability on which they have laid great stress, have established anything to show that they were indeed more meritorious than the final selectees. Thus, the argument that has been put forth by the applicants in both the O.As in terms of any superior merit or ability in the sports of Kabaddi etc., cannot be accepted.
11. Regarding rejection of the consideration of 1 st applicant in O.A.No.180/905/2016 due to non production of Non Creamy Layer certificate : The 1st applicant in O.A.No.180/905/2016 Shri.Isac Antony.M.G has submitted that he is a OBC candidate. He had submitted Annexure A-4 Community Certificate to the respondents which had been obtained from the competent authority. It specifically stated that it was issued for job purposes. It is submitted that the Annexure A-1 notification had not prescribed any Non Creamy Layer (NCL) Certificate to be produced by the OBC candidates. It is submitted that the 1st applicant however does belong to the Non Creamy Layer in the OBC category. The notification at Annexure A-1 did not specify any requirement and so the applicant did not produce the Non Creamy Layer Certificate. He submits that he did obtain the Non Creamy Layer -27- Certificate later (dated 16.01.2017) from the competent authority. A copy has been produced along with his rejoinder at Annexure A-13. A perusal of the said certificate reveals that it is dated 16.01.2017 and has been issued by the Tahsildar, Kochi, again presumably in the prescribed format. It is submitted that the applicant is entitled to be considered under the OBC category on this ground.
11.1 The respondents, both official and private, have contended that the 1st applicant, who produced only the Annexure A-4 OBC certificate at the time of application for employment cannot be taken as entitled to any OBC concession since the Tahsildar had not issued prescribed Non Creamy Layer Certificate. The Annexure A-4 community certificate had been issued 'for job purpose' as mentioned in the last paragraph of the same, but did not contain any indication of the applicant falling within the Non Creamy Layer. Hence, it is submitted that the official respondents rightly did not consider him as an OBC candidate for the selection, but considered him under the UR category. Further, since he did not possess the required 60% marks in 10+2 for UR candidates/category, he could not be considered for the post of Postal Assistant. It is submitted by the official respondents that paragraph 7(c) -28- of the 10.09.2012 Annexure A-1 Notification inviting applications had directed the candidates to attach the prescribed Community Certificate in respect of SC/ST/OBC. It is quite well settled that a candidate who is applying for appointment to posts under the Government of India and wishes to avail the concessions eligible for his community has to submit the Certificate in the prescribed form for the purpose by the Government. These instructions are statutory and all the candidates are liable to abide by the rules. Further, it is also relevant here that the selection process largely completed in 2014 itself in respect of many of the other sport disciplines and the selected candidates have been working since then. It is pointed out that candidates who did not submit Certificates in the prescribed format were not considered at the relevant time of selection. The same treatment was extended to all candidates. Hence, the submission of the Annexure A-13 certificate dated 16.01.2017 at this stage after the selection was completed and that too with the rejoinder obviously cannot be taken into consideration.
11.2 Learned counsel for the official respondents, Shri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil produced a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.(CAT) No.175/2019 in the matter of Syam Nath S vs. Union of -29- India & Ors., decided on 22.07.2020. This judgment had gone into various other judgments and had noted that these judgments had emphasized that when a person actually belongs to OBC category and he was entitled for reservation, his application cannot be rejected merely for the reason that he did not produce the OBC Non Creamy Layer Certificate in the prescribed format. However, the Hon'ble High Court held that while there cannot be any dispute with respect to the proposition of law as held in all the aforesaid judgments, the question was whether the petitioner had properly applied for being considered under the OBC category or under the General category. It was noted that in Gaurav Sharma vs. State of U.P (AIR) 2017 Allahabad 116 the Hon'ble High Court had laid down that an OBC candidate, therefore, has to establish not just that he is recognized as an OBC in the State concerned, but also that he does not fall within the zone of exclusion, namely, the creamy layer. Both these conditions have to be cumulatively satisfied. Further, an important aspect which must necessarily be noted was the significance of the last date prescribed in an advertisement and its impact. It was held that a last date comes to be prescribed in an advertisement or recruitment notice to seek certain well established objectives. It firstly puts all prospective candidates on notice with regard -30- to the eligibility qualifications that the employer desires a partcular candidate to hold. The prescription of the last date also acts as information to the prospective candidates to test and ascertain whether they are eligible to participate in the selection process. There are, therefore, upon the prescription of such a last date in the advertisement, no further shifting time lines or uncertainty. The prescription of such conditions in the advertisement also eschews any arbitrary action and denudes the authority from wielding a discretion which may be abused. 11.3 Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri.M.R.Hariraj brought to notice the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE & Ors., (2005) 9 SCC 779 that the possession of requisite qualifications on the date required is to be distinguished from submission of proof of the same by date required. It was held that the general rule was that an eligibility qualification must be possessed on the last date fixed for purpose of applying for any course of study or a post for availing benefit of reservation or weightage, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. Possession of requisite qualification by the date fixed has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets etc., and there can be no relaxation in -31- regard to possession of requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. However, depending on facts of the specific case, there can be some relaxation in matter of submission of proof of possession of said qualification. In regard to submission of said proof it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. It was clear that in the matter under consideration therein that on facts the appellant undoubtedly belonged to the reserved category concerned and there was only a shortcoming in submission of proof of the same due to an error in certificate concerned, the said error having been committed by the issuing authority. In any case, a corrected certificate was produced by appellant at stage of second counselling. Hence, the view taken by authorities in denying admission to appellant was wholly unjust and illegal.
11.4 We have carefully considered the above contention. However, we do not think that Dolly Chhanda (supra) is applicable in this particular instance. We note that the Non Creamy Layer OBC Certificate produced at Annexure A-13 is dated 16.01.2017, which is much after the entire selection process was completed and the selected candidates (4 th to 7th respondents herein) had joined the post. The respondents seem to have -32- been consistent in their approach in that they rejected and not treated as part of the OBC category, all candidates who could not produce the required certificate in the prescribed format at the relevant point of time. We, therefore, do not find that a case has been made for accepting the candidature of the applicants under the OBC (NCL) category at this fair distance of time after the selection has been completed. Further, even otherwise, if he was to be considered for the post of Postal Assistant, we have already noted that he cannot be, in any case, considered more meritorious or superior to the candidates who were actually selected for the post. The contention made by him that he should have been considered for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant on the basis of his submitted OBC Non Creamy Layer status thus is not accepted.
12. Treatment of the sports of Beach Kabaddi as Kabaddi : It is to be noted that the applicant had pointed in his rejoinder filed on 13.03.2017 for the very first time that the certificates submitted by some of the respondents are not valid as they referred to another sport known as "Beach Kabaddi". He made the point that Beach Kabaddi is a sport different from Kabaddi, whereas the selection was to be limited to Kabaddi (Men) only. He submitted that the 4 th respondent, -33- Shri.Arun.R.R had been selected for the post of Postal Assistant though he had only 3 'National' certificates which were produced by the respondents at Annexure R-2, Annexure R-5 and Annexure R-6 along with the reply. It was submitted by him that the other certificates in respect of the 4th respondent, which were produced at Annexure R-1, Annexure R-3 and Annexure R-4 cannot be counted as they are in respect of National 'Beach Kabaddi'. In this regard, it is submitted by the applicant that in any case the sport of Beach Kabaddi was not a recognized sport discipline till 2011. Since the certificates in respect of 4th respondent at Annexure R-1, Annexure R-3 and Annexure R-4 are pertaining to Beach Kabaddi Tournaments held in the years 2007, 2008 and 2010, they are not liable to be accepted as valid. In addition, the 8 th respondent, Shri.Omar Shereef.K.B besides being over-aged was also selected on the basis of international participation/winning position in Beach Kabaddi. It is submitted that the certificate of merit of 8 th respondent was not produced. It is also submitted that the claim of the 8th respondent that he had participated in international events was only in respect of Beach Kabaddi, which was not a recognized sports discipline at the time of Annexure A-1 notification.
-34-12.1 The applicant submits that the 8 th respondent had earlier tried to produce this so called international certificate before the Government of Kerala, seeking employment against Sports Quota. It appears that he had been selected on the basis of the said certificate by the State Government. However, the whole selection had been challenged in the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (K.A.T) in T.A.No.3423/2012. It is submitted that the said Tribunal passed its order on 11.10.2013, rejecting the claim of the 8th respondent by holding that Beach Kabaddi was not a recognized sport discipline till 2011. A copy of the orders of the K.A.T dated 11.10.2013, is produced at Annexure A-14 along with the rejoinder in O.A.No.180/905/2016. It is submitted that a reading of the Annexure A-14 order makes it clear that the sport of Beach Kabaddi came to be recognized only from 2011 onwards. Thus, the certificates obtained by the 4th respondent, which had been produced by the official respondents at Annexure R-1, Annexure R-3 and Annexure R-4 with their reply are invalid and cannot be accepted. Further, the Annexure A-14 order of the K.A.T had also found the 8th respondent not eligible to be considered under the Sports Quota for Kerala State as Beach Kabaddi was not accepted as an item of sports at that time. The applicant points out that the notification at Annexure A-1 only specifies the sport of Kabaddi -35- (Men) in contra distinction to the sport of Beach Kabaddi. Thus, the certificates obtained by the 4 th respondent of participation in 3 Nationals in Beach Kabaddi as well as the claim of an International Certificate in the case of the 8th respondent cannot be accepted in the eyes of law. In other words, these certificates are not entitled to be considered. 12.2 We have gone through the Annexure A-14 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (K.A.T) produced by the applicants along with their rejoinder. The K.A.T had considered in T.A.No.3423/2012 the issue put forth by the applicant therein/the 8 th respondent herein (Shri.Omar Shereef K.B). It appeared that the applicant therein was not considered for employment by the Government of Kerala under the Sports Quota because Beach Kabaddi was not yet a sports discipline recognized by the Kerala State Sports Council in 2008. It appears that the game was recognized only from 2011 onwards. It was thus submitted by the respondent State Government that the achievements in Beach Kabaddi during the years 2006 to 2008 could not make the applicant therein eligible for inclusion in the Select List. This decision had been taken by the Government of Kerala after examining the matter in detail at various levels. The applicant therein had produced a document in the -36- T.A.No.3423/2012 which had indicated that a National Coaching Camp, where he had been a participant, for the Asian Beach Games had been financed by the Sports Authority of India. Further, he had submitted that the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India (AKFI) was a National Federation recognized by the Government of India. He had been sent for the said event by the said Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India. The applicant therein also pointed out that the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) had decided that the sports like Beach Kabaddi, National Circle Style Kabaddi etc., formed a part of the parental National Sports Federation, the AKFI. It had been decided that no beach sports organisation would be recognized separately. This decision had been taken in the General Body meeting of the Indian Olympic Association held on 11.01.2004. On the other hand, the State Government of Kerala contended that it had taken its decision not to recognize the sport for the purposes of Sports Quota on the basis of the fact that any achievement or participation certificates not approved by the Kerala State Sports Council cannot be considered for priority points. The discipline of Beach Kabaddi was recognized by the Kerala State Sports Council only in 2011 onwards. Hence the applicant's case could not be considered for recruitment under the Sports Quota.
-37-12.3 After examining the matter in depth the K.A.T in paragraph 11 noted that all the applicants and the Government were bound by Annexure A-4 notification therein and the terms and conditions contained in that. It was to be decided whether the applicant was eligible to be considered for the said post only in terms of Annexure A-4. The Government had taken note of the fact that the Kerala State Sports Council recognized the Beach Kabbadi only from 2011 onwards. The Government had also noticed paragraph 2.7 and 3.7 (a)(viii) of Annexure A-4 Notification and took the view that award of the priority points to the applicant in terms of annexure IV of Annexure A-4 was not proper. The Tribunal then went on to observe that it is common knowledge that there is a great difference between Beach Games and other games. It stated in the order that as an example, Beach Football was played in a very small ground and the number of players were also limited. However, the sport commonly known as Football was played in a large ground with 11 players from each side. So, in common parlance, when we say Football, we mean the Football played in the ordinary playgrounds. Hence, it was observed by the learned Tribunal that unless a sports item played on the beach is specifically mentioned, it is not proper to include that item also along with the parent item. Accordingly -38- it also observed that when it is generally mentioned about a sports item like Kabaddi, it is not intended to include Beach Kabaddi. Further, the international championships mentioned at paragraph 1(i) of Annexure A-4 notification specifically mentioned events like Olympics, World Cup, Commonwealth Games, Afro Asian Games, Asian Games, Asia Pacific Championships, South Asia Championships, SAF Games, World University Games or Asian Games. This could not be taken as including Asian Beach Games in which the applicant (Shri.Omar Shereef K.B) (the 8th respondent herein) had taken part. In conclusion, therefore, in addition to making the above technical observations about beach sports, the learned K.A.T found as follows :
" .......At any rate, the view taken in this regard by the Government cannot be said to be totally perverse or irrational. A plausible view has been taken by the Government. Recognition of the Sports Council is mandatory as per paragraph 3.7 (viii). Annexure A-12 letter to the University cannot have any validity in view of the express stand taken by the Sports Council that they have not recognized Beach Kabaddi discipline up to 2011. In view of the said fact, we cannot say, the view taken by the Government is an irrational view. As stated earlier, the view taken by the Government is only a plausible view. So, we are not justified in interfering with the same in exercise of our power of judicial review. The Sports Council is an expert body and the Government is the employer. They can take a decision according to their norms. So, the view taken by the Government in this regard cannot be -39- interfered with unless there are compelling materials for the same. We find, no such materials or grounds are before us.
In the result, the Original Application fails and it is accordingly dismissed."
12.4 It is submitted by the applicant herein that the above order of the K.A.T reveals that this shows that the sports of Beach Kabaddi was not a part of the sport of Kabaddi. Further, it was not recognized as a sport until 2011. The certificates which have been brought forth by the 4 th respondent and the 8th respondent in O.A.No.180/905/2016 therefore cannot be taken in consideration by the respondents while judging comparative merit between the applicants. In addition, learned counsel for the applicant Shri.M.R.Hariraj also pointed out some more technical differences in these two sports at the time of oral hearing, as well as by way of averments in M.A.No.180/484/2017. The point was made that Kabaddi as a sport has 3 differentiated types. These are Kabaddi itself, Beach Kabaddi and Circle Kabaddi. It was pointed out by him that all the three types of Kabaddi are regulated by different rules. Separate national tournaments are conducted by the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India. For example, in general Kabaddi the ground has to be level and a soft/mat surface is used. However, in Beach Kabaddi the ground has to -40- be levelled with sand of minimum 30 cm depth. The number of players in each team for general Kabaddi consists of a minimum 10 and maximum 12 players of which 7 players take the ground at a time and the remaining players are substitutes. However in Beach Kabaddi each team consists of 6 players of which 4 players take the ground at a time and the remaining 2 players are substitutes. The rules for each of these sports is also different.
12.5 In addition to the above, it was also submitted that the list of sports which qualify for appointment of meritorious sports persons (as per the consolidated instructions on incentives for sports persons in the Government of India's O.M issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) dated 03.10.2013 vide F.No.14034/01/2013-Estt.(D) produced at Annexure A-23) identify sports like Badminton and Ball Badminton separately within it. This is also in the case of Hockey and Ice Hockey. Further, the sport of Gymnastics specifically states that it includes Body Building. Similarly, Ice Skiing and Ice Skating are different sports. Kabaddi appears at Serial No.24 in the said list of sports at Annexure A-23. Kabaddi is identified without stating anything about Beach Kabaddi or Circle Kabaddi. It is submitted that this establishes -41- that the sport of Kabaddi is a stand alone sport and is differentiated from the sports of Beach Kabaddi or Circle Kabaddi or any other type of Kabaddi. Otherwise, the list of sports would have specifically indicated that Kabaddi included Beach Kabaddi or Circle Kabaddi. This is also confirmed by the findings of the K.A.T in the aforementioned Annexure A-14 order dated 11.10.2013 in T.A.No.3423/2012, along with O.A.No.1646/2013, O.A.No.2107/2012 and T.A.No.2464/2012. It is submitted that this order had been appealed against by the 8 th respondent herein (Shri.Omar Shereef K.B.) in O.P.(KAT) No.4150/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. It is submitted however that the petition had been dismissed as 'not pressed' as per the Memo dated 11.12.2019 filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court had not gone into the issue and dismissed the O.P.(KAT). Thus, what remains is only the order of the K.A.T., which had clearly found that Beach Kabaddi had not been recognized till 2011 as a sport discipline. As such, it is submitted that this order is binding upon the respondents herein. 12.6 The 8th respondent Shri.Omar Shereef.K.B also filed a reply statement in which he asserted that he is a Kabaddi player, who had participated in various national and international events. He is a -42- Graduate in Commerce and has also a Bachelor's in Physical Education. He was a member of the Indian team which participated in the Asian Beach Games held in Bali, Indonesia in the year 2008. This tournament was organized by Olympic Council of Asia (OCA). The team won the first place in the event and a copy of the certificate evidencing the same has been produced by him with his reply statement at Annexure R-8(a). Apart from this, he has also participated in National level competitions representing the State of Kerala in the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2008. Hence, his track record in the field of Kabaddi make him more meritorious than the applicants herein. Even by virtue of the Order or Preference at the Point No.2 of Annexure A-1 notification, he is entitled to be selected to the posts advertised and his selection was based on pure merit. It is also submitted by him that the Annexure A-14 order of the Hon'ble K.A.T is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case for two reasons. First, he submits that when the aforesaid order was first placed under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.(KAT) No.4150/2013, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to order an interim stay in the case. This was originally granted for a period of 6 months but later it was extended until further orders. (This contention, to our mind, is not very -43- material as O.P.(KAT) No.4150/2013 as well as the connected O.P.(KAT) was later dismissed as not pressed by the petitioner). The second reason put forth is that the Annexure A-14 order of the K.A.T cannot be relied upon as the basis on which his selection was not accepted therein was that Beach Kabaddi had been recognized as a sport by the Kerala State Sports Council only with effect from 2011 onwards, whereas the notification inviting applications for appointment under the Sports Quota was for the year 2008. According to the respondents in the Annexure A-14 order, the recognition of the Kerala State Sports Council for a sport was a mandatory requirement for getting an appointment in the Sports Quota under the State Government. On the other hand, in the matter under consideration herein, it is submitted that as far as the posts/disciplines identified as per the Annexure A-1 notification are concerned, the requirement contemplated therein is participation in that international competitions with the clearance of the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports is required for it to be given the first preference in the Order of Preference. It is submitted that the international event in which he had participated was having the clearance of the Department vide the Administrative Sanction No.90 dated 03.07.2008 issued by the Sports Authority of India. A copy of -44- this sanction is produced at Annexure R-8(f). It is submitted that the Sports Authority of India is an organization set up by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and is entrusted with the matters concerning sports development to be carried out by it on behalf of the Ministry. It is also submitted that Asian Beach Games was organized by the Olympic Council of Asia, in which 1650 athletes from 45 nations took part. A print out of the relevant web page from the official website of Olympic Council of Asia has been submitted at Annexure R-8(g) to establish that the event was part of the programme recognized by the Olympic Council of Asia.
12.7 Shri.Lal.K.Joseph learned counsel appearing for the 8 th respondent submitted that the above event in which the 8 th respondent had participated was thus an international event. The 8 th respondent was having the eligibility for being considered to the post under Sports Quota on the basis of Annexure A-1 notification at the highest preference in the Order of Preference. There is thus no illegality in his selection. Learned counsel submitted that even if the rules and surface on which Beach Kabaddi is played are somewhat different from Kabaddi, the fact of the matter is that similar skills are required in the -45- two games. The skills required to be a good player in Beach Kabaddi is exactly the same as those required for regular Kabaddi itself. Hence, it is submitted that all professional players play both the sports. Further, both sports are under the administration of the same national federation, the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India. In fact, there had been a matter filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.5509/2005 by another body called the Indian Beach Kabaddi Association wherein the said petitioner, being aggrieved by an order dated 08.02.2005 of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports denying recognition to it had approached the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi upheld the decision taken by the Union of India in not giving recognition to the Indian Beach Kabaddi Association and retaining the sport with the recognized National Sports Federation ie., Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India (AKFI). It was noted in the said judgment that AKFI has decided to include Beach and Circle Kabaddi in their regular championships and events abroad and, therefore, another federation could not be recognized. It was also noted that the recognition of the federation shall not be as a matter of right and would be purely in the discretion of the Government. Thus, it was felt that the impugned order dated 08.02.2005 did not call for any -46- interference on this count. It was found that there was no material to indicate that the discretion has been exercised unreasonably or arbitrarily or unfairly.
12.8 It is submitted that the above judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also establishes that the sport of Beach Kabaddi is not administered separately from Kabaddi by the recognized National Sports Federation. It hence falls under the overall rubric of the sports discipline of Kabaddi, even if administratively speaking. Hence, if the official respondents herein, have decided to consider a player's ability in Beach Kabaddi as equivalent to general Kabaddi while recruiting PA/SAs or Postman in the Department, they have every right to do so as long as it is not an arbitrary or whimsical decision. It is submitted that actually Beach Kabaddi is in fact more strenuous than general Kabaddi and, therefore, has to be subsumed within the sport of Kabaddi as a part of it. 12.9 In this regard, after going through these contentions and also after due consideration, we cannot hold that the decision by the K.A.T., produced at Annexure A-14 is the last word on whether the two sport disciplines of Kabaddi and Beach Kabaddi have to be treated differently -47- or not, when being considered by a appointing department for consideration for recruitment under the Sports Quota. All that the Annexure A-14 order has laid down is that priority has to be given to the Government and the recognized Sports Body authorized by it to decide such issues in the matter of selection and also that this decision did not call for any interference in exercise of the power of judicial review. It was only held that the recognition of a particular sport by the authorized Kerala State Sports Council was mandatory in the State of Kerala before that sport can be considered as a allowable discipline for the purpose of recruitment under the Sports Quota by the State Government of Kerala. However, we do not see this decision on such recognition or requirement in the State Government of Kerala operating in the matter of recruitment by a Government of India organization or department. In other words, the recognition by the Kerala State Sports Council of a sport is a prerequisite which is binding only on the sports so recognized for Sports Quota recruitment by the State Government of Kerala. It cannot have any more effect on sports recognized by the Government of India for recruitment which follows its own procedures. Thus, the Department of Posts, Government of India had taken a decision in the process of recruitment of sports persons that the certificates produced by the candidates related -48- to Beach Kabaddi have the same weightage or recognition as the certificates produced by the candidates related to Kabaddi in general. In that context, therefore, since the 8 th respondent herein was able to produce a certificate showing international participation as well as placement in the first place in the sport of Beach Kabaddi, in an event recognized by the Olympic Council of Asia, the respondents decided to treat the same as being covered under the first preference in the Order of Preference given at Annexure A-1. We cannot see how this decision be faulted on grounds of irrationality, arbitrariness or discrimination. Further, it has also been proven by the documents produced by the 8 th respondent at Annexure R-8(h) and Annexure R-8(i) that this sport not only is a sport administered under the parental national sports federation for Kabaddi ie., AKFI, but as per Annexure R-8 (i) it even got grants in aid for conduct of national championships from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. Annexure R-8(f) dated 03.07.2008 further shows that the sanction was given by the Sports Authority of India, which is the apex sports body under the Government of India, for holding a Beach Kabaddi Senior National Coaching, Camp for participation in Asian Beach Games to be held at Bali, Indonesia. These documents show that Beach Kabaddi is a sport which is not just part of the organizational or -49- administrative control of the AKFI but is also a recognized international sports within the overall rubric of Kabaddi by the official agencies. There may be separate rules, grounds, number of players etc., for Beach Kabaddi vis-a-vis general Kabaddi but nothing is brought to establish that as far as the recruitment process is concerned, it should not be treated as part of Kabaddi as both use similar skill sets and players play both games inter-changeably.
12.10 Thus, we feel that there was nothing wrong in the decision of the respondents in treating the certificates submitted by the 4 th and 8th respondents on par with the other certificates as part of the sports discipline of Kabaddi. There is also nothing to object to the grant of first preference in the Order of Preference to the 8 th respondent in the treatment of his certificate in Beach Kabaddi for participating and securing the first position in an international event, with clearance from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. Thus, in other words, we do not accept the contention made by the applicants that the Beach Kabaddi has to be placed on a different footing as compared to regular Kabaddi in treatment by authorities in the matter of recruitment. We also accept that the grant of first preference in the Order of Preference to the 8 th -50- respondent since he won a position in an international competition in Beach Kabaddi cannot be termed as erroneous. Hence, we reject all the contentions of the applicants in this regard.
13. Recruitment Rules applicable for the selection : The applicants in O.A.No.180/905/2016 raised another issue in the rejoinder. This was in relation to the prescription of 60% marks in the 10+2 Class from a recognized University/Board with English as a compulsory subject as the educational qualification required for Unreserved category candidates (UR) for recruitment for the posts of PA/SA. It is submitted by the applicants that the Recruitment Rules which were in force at the time of occurrence of the vacancy alone should be applicable for the selection to these posts. The posts that were notified to be filled up by the Annexure A-1 notification were for vacancies which had occurred during the years 2004-2010. The notification was specially issued to conduct the selection to fill up only these posts under the Sports Quota. It is submitted that the Annexure A-15 Recruitment Rules were in force at that time which covered the recruitment to the posts of PA/SA. These Rules were the Department of Posts (Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants) Recruitment Rules, 2002 which were issued by the -51- Department of Posts on 09.01.2002. As per the Schedule to these Rules, for the post of PA/SA the educational qualification prescribed in Column 8 was 10+2 Standard or 12th Class pass of a recognized University or Board of School Education or Board of Secondary Education with English as a compulsory subject. The applicants submit that the Recruitment Rules thus did not specify any cut off mark limits in the educational qualifications. The only requirement was for a pass in the 12th Standard. These Rules were later amended by the Annexure A-16 Rules issued as G.S.R.794(E) dated 03.11.2011. The new Rules called the Department of Posts (Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants) (Group C non-Gazetted), Recruitment Rules, 2011 were then notified. It had been indicated in these new Rules that they will come into force only on the date of their publication in the official Gazette. In the Schedule to these Rules, for the post of PA/SA, it has been provided in Column 7 in relation to educational and other qualifications that 10+2 Standard or 12 th Class pass with at least 60% marks from recognized University/Board of School Education/Board of Secondary Education with English as a compulsory subject (excluding vocational streams) would be required for UR candidates, 55% for OBC and 45% for SC/ST.
-52-13.1 It is submitted by the applicants in O.A.No.180/905/2016 that the later issued Annexure A-16 Rules, which were issued with prospective effect from 03.11.2011, cannot be taken as applicable to the process of recruitment in their case. It is submitted that the Annexure A-15 Rules alone are applicable. The latter Rules have prescribed only a 'pass' in the +2 course. They do not prescribe 60% marks, as was incorrectly notified in the Annexure A-1 notification. It is submitted that it is a settled position of law that the Rules which exist at the time of occurrence of the vacancies are to be taken into account. This has been upheld in a number of cases, namely, in Mohanan vs Director of Homeopathy 2006 (3) KLT 641, Arjun Singh Rathore & Ors. vs. B.N.Chaturvedi & Ors., 2007 (11) SC 605, and earlier in Y.V.Rangaiah & Ors. vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao & Ors., 1983 (3) SCC 284, P.Ganeshwar Rao & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 2068. It is further submitted that an identical issue was considered by this Tribunal arising out of the same notification and selection proceedings in O.A.No.180/715/2014. It had been ordered on 25.02.2016 in that O.A that only the earlier Recruitment Rules of 2002 were applicable. The applicant therein one Smt.Nisha.K.Joy who possessed less than 60% marks was ordered to be selected to the post of Postal Assistant. A copy -53- of the said order has been produced along with the rejoinder at Annexure A-17, in the matter of Nisha K Joy vs. Union of India & Ors., in O.A.No.180/715/2014, delivered on 25.02.2016.
13.2 In addition to the above, it is submitted that the very selection and recruitment has been done against the |Sports Quota, where the ability in the sport alone should be the criteria. It is contended that the 1 st applicant has more national participation than the selected persons. (We have dealt with this contention earlier). It is submitted that the rejection of candidates on the basis of marks in +2 examination is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is seen that the 5 th and 6th respondents who were stood selected did possess more than 60% marks. However, the marks in +2 should not be the criteria and merit in the field of sport alone should count.
13.3 The official respondents in an additional reply statement submitted in response to these contentions that the selection for the 32 posts of PA/SA and 20 posts of Postman has been completed strictly as per provisions including those in respect of educational qualifications as contained in the Annexure A-1 notification. In other words, the -54- respondents have followed the Rules in force at the time of the notification ie., the 2011 Recruitment Rules in the matter of recruitment to the posts of PA/SA. Further, it is submitted that these recruited candidates have now been working in the Department since 2014. The details of the selected candidates under the Kabaddi (Men) discipline, along with their merit in the sport has been submitted in the reply statement in detail. It is simply put that the applicants in O.A.No.180/905/2016 did not come within the selection zone for Kabaddi, and hence, they were not eligible for consideration. Thus, the respondents seek to submit that all the candidates who applied had been evaluated for selection in terms of the Recruitment Rules of 2011, which provided for certain minimum marks for selection to the post of PA/SA, depending on the community. The 1st applicant in O.A.No.180/905/2016 could not, thus be considered owing to the reasons which have been gone into detail in relation to his community certificate not being provided as well as due to the comparative merit vis-a-vis selected candidates. 13.4 Learned counsel for the applicants brought to our notice that the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.(CAT) No.147/2016 arising from the order of the Tribunal in the earlier mentioned O.A.No.180/715/2014 -55- had found nothing wrong in the verdict passed by the Tribunal. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the Department was not at all justified in clubbing the vacancies under the 'sports quota' for the years from 2004 to 2010 together, to be filled up, by issuing 'Annexure A-7' notification with reference to 'Annexure A-12 rules', which were brought into force after occurrence of the vacancies concerned. It was held that there is no retrospective operation for these Annexure A-12 rules, which took their breath for the first time only from 03.11.2011. The vacancies which had occurred prior had to be filled up by applying Annexure A-11 rules (old rules). In the circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court declared that the verdict passed by the Tribunal was perfectly within the four walls of law. Accordingly, interference was declined and the Original Petition filed by the respondents against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed.
13.5 Learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents brought to our notice a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Raj Kumar & Ors., (2022) 15 SCR 847. In this judgment dated 20.05.2022 the Hon'ble Supreme Court went into the case of Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) relied upon by the Tribunal -56- while disposing the O.A.No.180/715/2014 (the case of Smt.Nisha.K.Joy). The findings in Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) were overruled. In Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) it had been held that vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra) that the Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date which they arose. Hence, the statement in Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States and was overruled. It was also held therein that there is no right for an employee outside the rules governing the services. Services under the State are in the nature of a status, a hallmark of which is the need of the State to unilaterally alter the rules to subserve the public interest. It was also pointed out in the judgment that what was held in Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) had been consistently being subjected to exception. The judgment also went into the details of as many as 15 cases which were exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Y.V.Rangaiah (supra). It was held that -57- Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) case must, therefore, be understood in the context of the rules involved therein. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held in the State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra) that it is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the 'rule in force' as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates and that the Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government.
13.6 We note from the above that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been ruling even after the orders in Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of law that existed on the date when they arose. Thus, in the State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded that the decision in Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) is to be overruled. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court also held that there is no right for an -58- employee outside the rules governing the services and that the services under the State are in the nature of a status, a hallmark of which is there is the right of the State to unilaterally alter the rules to subserve the public interest. Applying the ratio in this decision to the matter at hand, we note that all the applicants herein were private individuals who had applied for the posts of PA/SA and/or Postman for consideration under a specific quota ie., the Sports Quota. A case can thus be made that they would not have any right in relation to which Rules would be applicable in the process of their recruitment, except to the extent that in case of their applications met with the required criteria prescribed by the competent authorities they would be fairly considered for the posts. Thus, and more so in the light of the findings in the State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra) the respondents had every right to consider their applications under the provisions of the prevailing Annexure A-16 Rules, issued on 03.11.2011 and not go by the earlier Annexure A-15 Rules, issued on 09.01.2002 just because the vacancies pertained to the years 2004-2010. We note that the Annexure A-1 notification was issued on 10.09.2012, when clearly the Annexure A-16 Department of Posts (Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants) (Group C non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2011 had already been notified on 03.11.2011. It was also clearly -59- specified in the Annexure A-1 notification, in relation to the requirement under educational qualifications, that candidates being considered in the UR category would have had to pass the 12 th Standard (+2) examination with at least 60% marks and that OBC and SC/ST candidates would have some concessions at 55% and 45% marks respectively. The additional reply statement of the respondents also makes it clear that the recruitment for all the posts conducted pursuant to Annexure A-1 notification ie., 32 posts of PA/SA and 20 posts of Postman under different sporting disciplines had been done as per the provisions contained in the Annexure A-1 notification.
13.7 We feel that the orders of this Tribunal in O.A.No.180/715/2014 (Smt.Nisha.K.Joy) produced at Annexure A-17 along with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in O.P.(CAT) No.147/2016 will thus have now to be considered in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra) overruling the findings in Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) which was the basis on which O.A.No.180/715/2014 was disposed. Those orders/judgments will be only applicable in the case of the applicants therein only. Further, we find that there has been no discrimination shown against the applicants in -60- terms of their treatment as all other candidates who had applied were treated similarly. Hence, in relation to the applicability of the concerned Recruitment Rules, we find that there has been no error committed by the respondents in applying the qualifying educational standard as per the Recruitment Rules of 2011 produced at Annexure A-16 to the process of recruitment. As noted, we are considerably guided in this conclusion by the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra). Though, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) was the binding judgment at the time of selection, as the judgment in the State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra) was passed much later, we note that exceptions were being carved out from Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) almost soon after over the years, as noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It did not appear that even from the time of issue of Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) that the judgment was binding or the matter was finally settled. In addition, we also note that even in case the 1st applicant in the O.A.No.180/905/2016 is to be considered as per the earlier Recruitment Rules produced at Annexure A-15, and not by the Recruitment Rules at Annexure A-16, nowhere have the respondents accepted that his skills or abilities or his merit in the sports of Kabaddi were at a higher level compared to the 3 persons selected against the post -61- of Postal Assistant. Hence, on that ground as well the contentions of the applicant are not acceptable. Thus, we are not finding for the applicant in the matter of which Recruitment Rules should have been used for the process of selection.
14. The process undertaken during the course of selection : It is submitted by the applicants in the O.As that the Annexure A-1 notification at paragraph 2 had laid down that meritorious sportspersons would be selected for appointment based on instructions contained in the DoP&T O.M dated 04.08.1980, as amended from time to time, in the Order of Preference prescribed and on performance in the Selection Trials. The applicants have alleged in M.A.No.180/484/2017 filed in O.A.No.180/905/2016 that the respondents did not draw up any Select List or publish a schedule showing the marks obtained by each candidate in the interview during the process of selection. This, they suggest, is a glaring omission, which they state, has been revealed by the information given to them in response to a RTI request dated 16.01.2017, produced at Annexure A-6 in the O.A.No.180/393/2017. The same response has been produced at Annexure A-22 in the O.A.No.180/905/2016. It is submitted that the information provided has revealed that no marks were allotted to -62- any candidate, based on which the respondents who were selected could be termed superior in sporting merit in comparison to others who participated. Further, it also reveals that the Order of Preference as laid down in the DoP&T O.M and indicated in the Annexure A-1 notification was also not followed. Hence, it is submitted that the selection carried out pursuant to the Notification for the discipline of Kabaddi (Men) was done without following any norms and was as per the whims and fancies of the Respondent Nos.1-3. This is also revealed by the fact that no rank list was prepared in the discipline after the selection process was completed and there had been no allotment of marks for the selected candidates. Further, there was no Selection Committee as such and no final allotment of marks to each candidate, based on the certificates produced by them. It is also submitted that there was no proper evaluation of all the documents during the Selection Trials prescribed in the Annexure A-1 notification. If it was done properly, the records would have revealed the same. The fact that there are no such records shows that the process was not properly carried out. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant in O.A.No.180/393/2017 Smt.Rekha Vasudevan that even if the Committee had been constituted, there is no evidence of any evaluation after the Selection Trials in the files which -63- were produced and shown to the learned counsel for the applicants during the hearing of the O.As. There was also no Select List drawn up after the selection was completed.
14.1 Learned counsel for the private respondents have tried to meet these contentions in their statement. They have stated that there was no malafide or irregularity in the selection process. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent, Smt.Amrutha Vidyadharan A, submitted that the plea of malafide and irregularities do not stand. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.V.Thimmaiah & Ors. vs. UPSC & Ors., (2008) KHC 4368 that 'plea of malafides are usually raised by an interested party and that court should not draw any conclusion unless allegations are substantiated beyond doubt.' It is pointed out that the candidates, including the applicants, had appeared before the Selection Committee and participated in the same selection process without demur and are thus estopped from complaining that it was not in accordance with the rules. This established principle has also been followed in Dhananjay Malik & Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., MANU/SC/7287/2008. The fact is that the applicants have not been able to establish any serious irregularity in the overall procedure followed for selection to the post. -64- On the contrary they themselves did not fulfill the criteria for selection to the post as per the Annexure A-1 notification. The selected respondents who joined the posts have been working in the Department ever since they were appointed in 2016/2017. It is submitted that their performance during the selection had been judged by the Committee and was found to outweigh the performance of the applicants and, hence, they were selected. The applicants in the O.A.No.180/905/2016 even though belonging to OBC category, could not be considered under the criteria for selection to the post of Postal Assistant. The reasons have already been brought out earlier and need not be repeated again. The applicant in O.A.No.180/393/2017 had not produced any documents in the O.A., which reveal his marks in +2/10+2 apart from his averment that he had secured a third class. However, the reply statement filed by the Union of India states that the said applicant had secured only 37.88% marks in +2 and thus was not eligible for consideration for the post of Postal Assistant.
14.2 We have examined the matter of the process adopted for the selection. Regarding the issue of lack of marks being given by the Selection Committee to each candidate or marks not being given to each -65- certificate that was produced; while this to some extent, can be argued to be a lacunae, it need not be taken to be a significant omission in the facts and circumstances of this case. We have already noted that the vast majority of the certificates produced were largely in the nature of 'Participation certificates' at various National, Senior/Junior or University level events or tournaments. There was hardly any certificate produced by the candidates under the Kabaddi (Men) quota establishing their success in place in the position between 1 and 3 as was required in the Order of Preference of Annexure A-1 Notification at Point No.2. In fact, it appears that most of the selection had to be done based on the 6 th preference in the Order of Preference, given in the notification, which only took into account general participation in these tournaments. Whether a person who has participated in 6 national events is then considered inferior compared to another person who participated in 7 national events appears to be akin to adopting a mechanical process based only on the number of times of participation. The Committee which was set up, on the contrary, appears to have looked at the selection in a more holistic manner by conducting the selection based on some merit in the sport (Kabaddi) combined with merit in the qualifying examination (10+2/+2) as well as performance in the Selection Trials. -66- This appears to be the process which has been adopted by the Selection Committee. It is not for this Tribunal to go beyond what is revealed from the records. In any case, the scope for Courts and Tribunals to look at a selection process is limited, as has been laid down in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 273. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows :
"23. ......Once the authorities concerned are satisfied with the eligibility qualifications of the person concerned, it is not for the Court or the Tribunal to embark upon an investigation of its own to ascertain the qualifications of the said person."
14.3 In the light of the above considerations and in the nature of the facts that do not establish any irregularity in procedure, arbitrariness or discrimination, we cannot fault the procedure followed by the respondents. If there was an element of picking and choosing by influence etc., the same is not apparent. Even if it appears that the respondents have given much higher weightage for participation in international events vis-a-vis national events as per the criteria drawn up by them, it would not be proper for this Tribunal to question whether this is correct or proper, at this stage. Further, according to the private respondents, the Committee had looked into the overall records -67- in terms of the certificates provided, and not so much into individual performance in the Selection Trials, which was more in the nature of a basic test in relation to abilities. Hence, no ranking was made after these trials. As stated earlier, we are in broad agreement that no patent irregularity is established. We are thus unable to accept the contentions of the applicants about the nature of the overall selection process.
15. Thus, having traversed the broad issues in these O.As under the thematic headings above, no case is made in favour of our interventions for the applicants. Hence, in light of these considerations as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to accept the contentions made in both the O.As. In parting, we may note that the case of 8th respondent in relation to his age was also dealt with by the respondents as per the rules, which had allowed up to 8 years of relaxation in his case. Hence, his selection cannot be termed as illegal because of being overaged. Other aspects in relation to the selection of the 8th respondent as well as other selected respondents have already been gone in detail earlier.
-68-
16. The O.As are accordingly dismissed. M.A.No.180/26/2017 in O.A.No.180/905/2016 for direction is also dismissed. We are making no order as to costs.
(Dated this the 7th day of March, 2024)
K.V.EAPEN JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp
-69-
List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00905/2016
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the Notification No.Rectt.31-4/2008 dated 10.09.2012 issued by second respondent.
2. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the SSLC 1 st page and mark list of first applicant issued by Board of Public Instructions.
3. Annexure A-3 - A copy of the 10+2 certificate of the first applicant issued by Board of Higher Secondary Education.
4. Annexure A-4 - A copy of the Community Certificate No.H1/1246 R.No.11198/2011-12 issued to the first applicant by the Tahsildar, Kochi dated 26.06.2009.
5. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the Participation Certificate issued by Minstry of Youth Affairs and Sports No.571 dated 08.01.2007.
6. Annexure A-5(a) - A copy of the Souvenr Certificate issued by Utharachal Kabaddi Association dated 25.11.1991.
7. Annexure A-5(b) - A copy of the Participation Certificate issued by Directorate of Public Instructions, Chattisgarh dated 09.12.2005.
8. Annexure A-5(c) - A copy of the Participation Certificate issued by Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports dated 24/27.11.2005.
9. Annexure A-5(d) - A copy of the Participation Certificate issued by Directorate of Public Instructions, Madhya Pradesh dated 24.01.2007.
10. Annexure A-5(e) - A copy of the Certificate issued by Mahatma Gandhi University.
11. Annexure A-5(f) - A copy of the Certificate issued by Mahatma Gandhi University dated 30.01.2010.
12. Annexure A-5(g) - A copy of the 58th National Kabaddi Championship Certificate issued by Andhra Kabaddi Association dated 12.01.2011.
-70-
13. Annexure A-5(h) - A copy of the 59th National Kabaddi Championship Certificate issued by Hyderabad Kabaddi Association.
14. Annexure A-5(i) - A copy of the Certificate issued by Mahatma Gandhi University dated 20.01.2012.
15. Annexure A-5(j) - A copy of the Certificate issued by Mahatma Gandhi University dated 02.03.2012.
16. Annexure A-5(k) - A copy of the 60th National Kabaddi Championship Certificate issued by Kerala State Kabaddi Association dated 22.11.2012.
17. Annexure A-5(l) - A copy of the Certificate issued by Mahatma Gandhi University dated 20.05.2013.
18. Annexure A-5(m) - A copy of the 62nd National Kabaddi Championship Certificate issued by Tamil Nadu Kabaddi Association dated 18.01.2015.
19. Annexure A-5(n) - A copy of the National Games, Kerala 2015 issued in February 2014.
20. Annexure A-6 - A copy of the SSLC certificate with mark lists of the second applicant issued by Director of Public Instructions.
21. Annexure A-7 - A copy of the Community Certificate dated 01.10.2016.
22. Annexure A-8 - A copy of the 22nd South Zone Kabaddi Championship 2005 issued by Kerala Kabaddi Association.
23. Annexure A-8(a) - A copy of the 53rd National Kabaddi Championship Certificate issued by Hyderabad Kabaddi Association dated 31.12.2005.
24. Annexure A-8(b) - A copy of the 54th National Kabaddi Championship Certificate issued by Andhra Kabaddi Association. -71-
25. Annexure A-8(c) - A copy of the 55th National Kabaddi Championship Certificate issued by Vidharba Kabaddi Association.
26. Annexure A-8(d) - A copy of the 56th National Kabaddi Championship Certificate issued by Vidharba Kabaddi Association.
27. Annexure A-8(e) - A copy of the 58th National Kabaddi Championship Certificate issued by Vidharba Kabaddi Association dated 12.01.2011.
28. Annexure A-8(f) - A copy of the 60th National Kabaddi Championship Certificate issued by Kerala Kabaddi Association dated 22.11.2012.
29. Annexure A-9 - A copy of the Letter dated 01.05.2013 issued by Assistant Director in the office of 1st respondent.
30. Annexure A-10 - A copy of the Order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.446/2013 with M.A.No.180/1265/2015 dated 21.01.2016
31. Annexure A-11 - A copy of the Order No.Rectt.31-4/2008 (Pt.III) dated 18.08.2016 issued by third respondent.
32. Annexure A-12 - A copy of the Merit Certificate issued to 8 th respondent dated 03.01.2011 by the Kerala Sports Council.
33. Annexure A-13 - A copy of the Non creamy Layer Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Kochi dated 16.01.2017.
34. Annexure A-14 - A copy of the Order in T.A.No.3423/2012 dated 11.10.2013 of Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram.
35. Annexure A-15 - A copy of the Recruitment Rules 2002 dated 09.01.2002 issued by the Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts.
36. Annexure A-16 - A copy of the Recruitment Rules 2011 dated 03.11.2011 issued by the Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts.
-72-
37. Annexure A-17 - A copy of the Order in O.A.No.715/2014 dated 25.02.2016 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.
38. Annexure A-18 - A copy of the Rules and Regulations of Kabaddi issued by Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India.
39. Annexure A-19 - A copy of the Rules and Regulations of Beach Kabaddi issued by Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India.
40. Annexure A-20 - A copy of the Rules and Regulations of Kabaddi issued by Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India.
41. Annexure A-21 - A copy of the Letter dated 19.04.2013 issued by the Assistant Director (Rectt.).
42. Annexure A-22 - A copy of the Letter dated 16.01.2017 issued by the Assistant Director (Rectt.) under RTI Act.
43. Annexure A-23 - A copy of the O.M.No.14034/01/2013-Estt., dated 03.10.2013 of Department of Personnel and Training.
44. Annexure R-1 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Senior (June 2007).
45. Annexure R-2 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Senior (December 2007).
46. Annexure R-3 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Senior (May 2008).
47. Annexure R-4 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Senior (March 2010).
48. Annexure R-5 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Senior (January 2011).
49. Annexure R-6 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Junior (2004).
-73-
50. Annexure R-7 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Senior (2011).
51. Annexure R-8 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Junior (2008).
52. Annexure R-9 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National School Games (2009).
53. Annexure R-10 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National School Games (2008).
54. Annexure R-11 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Senior (2011).
55. Annexure R-12 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Junior (2009).
56. Annexure R-13 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Junior (2008).
57. Annexure R-14 - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in Inter University Championship Competition (2010).
58. Annexure R-15 - A copy of the SSLC Certificate of the 8 th respondent.
59. Annexure R-4(a) - A copy of the Certificate issued by the Board of Higher Secondary Examination, Government of Kerala.
60. Annexure R-4(b) - A copy of the Bachelor of Physical Education issued by Kannur University dated 09.01.2014.
61. Annexure R-4(c) - A copy of the Certificate of Master of Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) issued by Kannur University dated 29.05.2015.
62. Annexure R-4(d) - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Senior (June 2007).
-74-
63. Annexure R-4(e) - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Senior (December 2007).
64. Annexure R-4(f) - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Senior (May 2008).
65. Annexure R-4(g) - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Senior (March 2010).
66. Annexure R-4(h) - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Senior (January 2011).
67. Annexure R-4(i) - A copy of the Certificate of having participated in National Junior (2004).
68. Annexure R-4(j) - A copy of the Relieving Order dated 28.10.2010 issued by Sports Authority of India.
69. Annexure R-4(k) - A copy of the Certificate of emerging Runner Up in State Junior Championship (2004-05).
70. Annexure R-4(l) - A copy of the Certificates of having secured prizes in Inter Collegiate Championship for 2006.
71. Annexure R-4(m) - A copy of the Certificates of having secured prizes in Inter Collegiate Championship for 2006.
72. Annexure R-4(n) - A copy of the Certificates of having secured prizes in Inter Collegiate Championship for 2006.
73. Annexure R-4(o) - A copy of the Certificate of participation in All India/South Zone Inter University (2006-07).
74. Annexure R-5(1) - A copy of the General Education Department School Leaving Certificate of the Government of Kerala.
75. Annexure R-5(2) - A copy of the Certificate issued by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Government of Kerala. -75-
76. Annexure R-5(3) to R-5(8) - A copy of the Certificates showing his participation during the period of notification.
77. Annexure R-5(9) to R-5(11) - A copy of the Certificates showing his current participation after the period of notification.
78. Annexure R-6(1) - A copy of the Letter No.B/Appt./2014-15 dated 19.09.2016.
79. Annexure R-8(a) - A copy of the Certificate.
80. Annexure R-8(b) - A copy of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 25.01.1995.
81. Annexure R-8(c) - A copy of the Certificate dated 20.09.2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Paravur.
82. Annexure R-8(d) - A copy of the Interim Order dated 25.11.2013 in O.P.(KAT) No.150/2013.
83. Annexure R-8(e) - A copy of the Administrative Sanction No.90 dated 03.07.2008 issued by the Sports Authority of India.
84. Annexure R-8(f) - A copy of the Printout of the relevant web page from the official website of Olympic Council of Asia with respect to Asian Beach Games, 2008.
85. Annexure R-8(g) - A copy of the Communication issued by a major Kabaddi Federation of India dated 25.04.2006.
86. Annexure R-8(h) - A copy of the Communication dated 03.01.2006 issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00393/2017
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the Notification No.Rectt/31-4/2008 dated 10.10.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent.
2. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the Order dated 21.01.2016 in O.A.No.446/2013 of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
-76-
3. Annexure A-3(a) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in XLIII National School Games 1997-98.
4. Annexure A-3(b) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in 44 th National School Games 1998.
5. Annexure A-3(c) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in XLV National School Games 16.11.1999 to 21.11.1999.
6. Annexure A-3(d) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in South Zone Inter University Kabaddi Championship issued by University of Kerala.
7. Annexure A-3(e) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in 51 st Senior National Kabaddi Championship 2003 organized by Maharashtra State Kabaddi Association.
8. Annexure A-3(f) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in 21 st South Zone Kabaddi Championship 2004.
9. Annexure A-3(g) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in 55 th Senior National Kabaddi Championship 2007.
10. Annexure A-3(h) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in 3 rd National Beach Kabaddi Championship 2008.
11. Annexure A-3(i) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in XLIII National School Games 1997-98 53rd State Championship organized by Kerala Kabaddi Association.
12. Annexure A-3(j) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in 56 th Senior National Kabaddi Championship 2008.
13. Annexure A-3(k) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in 57 th Senior National Kabaddi Championship 2010.
14. Annexure A-3(l) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in 61 st Senior National Kabaddi Championship 2013.
-77-
15. Annexure A-3(m) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in 62 nd South Zone Kabaddi Championship 2014.
16. Annexure A-3(n) - A copy of the Participation Certificate in XXXV National Games 2015.
17. Annexure A-4(a) - A copy of the Letter No.Rectt/31-4/2008 dated 19.04.2013 issued by the 3rd respondent.
18. Annexure A-4(b) - A copy of the Letter No.Rectt/31-4/2008 dated 01.05.2013 issued by the 3rd respondent.
19. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the Memo No.Rectt/31-4/2008 (Pt.III) dated 18.08.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent.
20. Annexure A-6 - A copy of the Letter No.Rectt/31-4/Misc/2016 dated 16.01.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent.
21. Annexure R-5(1) - A copy of the General Education Department School Leaving Certificate of the Government of Kerala.
22. Annexure R-5(2) - A copy of the Certificate issued by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Government of Kerala.
23. Annexure R-5(3) to R-5(8) - A copy of the Certificates showing his participation during the period of notification.
24. Annexure R-5(9) to R-5(11) - A copy of the Certificates showing his current participation after the period of notification.
25. Annexure R-6(1) - A copy of the Letter No.B/Appt/2014-15 dated 19.09.2016.
26. Annexure R-6(2) - A copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate issued by General Education Department, Government of Kerala.
27. Annexure R-6(3) - A copy of the Merit Certificate issued to the 6 th respondent dated 05.12.2007.
-78-
28. Annexure R-6(4) - A copy of the Certificate of Participation in 38th All India Rural Sports Tournament conducted by Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India on December 15 - 18, 2007.
29. Annexure R-6(5) - A copy of the Certificate issued by the 53 rd School Games Federation of India, National Kabaddi 2007-2008.
30. Annexure R-6(6) - A copy of the Merit Certificate issued by the Kerala Kabaddi Association dated 29.11.2009.
_______________________________