Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Insofar as the allegations made by the petitioner Amit Kumar Dhankhar that no trials have been held, it is the case of the respondent no. 4 that the trials are done periodically i.e. once in 3 or 4 months or so. There is no hard and fast rule that before any competition, trials must be held without exception. It is logically not possible to hold the trials before every tournament. Participation in the trials is a very complicated issue for the participants. The participants have to adjust their weight according to the category and invariably, they are required to either reduce or increase their weight to match their category. It is the case of the respondent No. 4 that repeated trials also adversely affects the performance of wrestlers inasmuch as he cannot concentrate in his performance and preparation for the tournament. Once trials are done and evaluation of wrestlers is made on the basis of their achievements and current performance, the Selection Committee, while acting in a fair and transparent manner, selects the wrestlers for next following events and a change of wrestlers is made only if it is called for. It is also the case of the respondent No. 4 that the last trials were held on February 18, 2014 at Sonepat wherein, trials were held for 65 kg as well as 70 kg category. The petitioner offered himself in trials in 70 kg category and not in 65 kg category. The selections have been made for the Commonwealth Games, 2014 keeping in view the performance of the wrestlers at the said trials and their current performance in the camp which is underway since November, 2013. It is the case of respondent No. 4 based on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) 5034/2010, titled Shumel Vs. Union of India and Ors. and connected writ petitions decided on August 02, 2010, no interference is called for in the selection of the team which is based on the performance, and the selection of players should be left to the experts. The respondent No. 4 also relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) 7170/2010, titled Neha Rathi Vs. Union of India and Ors., decided on November 10, 2010, wherein this Court, has held that there is no rule to necessarily hold selection trials and the selection of wrestlers on the basis of their past performance does not call for fresh trials.

18. The stand of the respondent No. 4-Wrestling Federation of India in this writ petition is almost on the same lines as taken in W.P.(C) No. 3914/2014.

19. The respondent No. 4 (WFI) has also taken a stand that on February 18, 2014, trials were held for selection of wrestlers for Senior Freestyle Indian Wrestling Team for World Cup held at Los Angeles and for 2014 Senior Free Style Wrestling Asian Championship from 22 to 24 April 2014 at Kazakhstan. The said trials were held in the presence of Selection Committee to select wrestlers in the 8 categories. After watching the performance, a team was selected which included the name of Amit Dhankhar, one of the petitioners in 70 kg category. The petitioner No. 1 Joginder Kumar did not participate in the trial as he was absent on the pretext of physical injury. The petitioner No. 2 Rahul Aware participated in the said trials in the category of 57 kg weight and he lost the trial to Amit Kumar, who has been selected in his place. The petitioner No. 3 Mausam Khatri and Mr. Rajeev Tomar were relieved from Doping Charges by NADA. Taking into account the past performance, trials were held for petitioner No. 3 Mausam Khatri and Mr. Rajeev Tomar along with trials for Greco Roman Style on April 02, 2014. In the said trials, petitioner No. 3 Mausam Khatri lost to Mr. Satyavarat Kadyan who has been selected. It is also the stand of the Wrestling Federation of India that the NADA team came to the ongoing training camp at Sonepat on June 21, 2014 to conduct the Dope test on the participants, whose dope has not so far been conduct. Mr. Amit Dhankhar and petitioner No. 3 Mausam Khatri and Mr. Ajit were present in the camp but, they refused to submit themselves for Dope Test.

20. Insofar as Joginder Kumar, petitioner No. 1 is concerned, according to the respondent No. 4 (WFI), he did not attend the camp for 5 months from January to May 2014. According to the Code, an athlete, who did not participate in the coaching camp prior to selection cannot be allowed to participate in the selection trials, except in exceptional cases with due justification. In the absence of petitioner No. 1 Joginder Kumar in the camp, it was necessary to bring another wrestler to the training camp in 125 kg category. It is the case of the respondent No. 4 (WFI), that it is impermissible to allow wrestlers, who have not attended the training camp to participate in the selection trials, much less an international event. Further, it would be inappropriate for the respondent No. 4 (WFI) to replace a wrestler who has been training himself for the specific weight category for over 7 months or to ask him to undergo fresh trials. A comparative statement has been filed, reflecting the contention of petitioner No. 1 and of Rajeev Tomar. The petitioner No. 2 lost to Amit kumar in 55 kg category in the selection trials held on February 18, 2014 at Sonepat. Despite losing to Amit Kumar, who is also an Olympian and a Silver Medallist of 2013 Senior World Wrestling Championship, Budapest, the respondent No. 4 (WFI) gave another chance to petitioner No. 2 for participation in International Wrestling Tournament held at Italy from 29.05.2014 to 01.06.2014. However, just before the team was to leave for Italy, the petitioner submitted an application on May 26, 2014 expressing his inability to participate in the event on the pretext of fitness. It appears that the petitioner No. 2 avoided to participate in the tournament fearing defeat. The respondent- WFI filed a comparative chart showing the merits of the petitioner No. 2 Rahul Aware and Mr. Amit Kumar, who have been selected in that category.

25. Mr. Raj Kumar Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 3955/2014 would submit that the petitioner is in camp since January, 2014 at SAI Centre, Sonepat. He would highlight the achievements of the petitioner by taking me through Annexure P-1 of the writ petition to contend that as late as August 2011, the petitioner has won Commonwealth Wrestling Championship. He would state that earlier he has been participating in 60 kg category and because of the change in the weight category as suggested by international body, he has been preparing himself for getting selected in the 61 kg category. He would state, in terms of the Code, the selection trials are imperative before a team is selected. Unfortunately, the same have not been held. He would also state, such a selection trial must follow a criteria having been laid down by the respondent No. 4 (WFI) and put on the website. It is his submission that the writ petition has not become infructuous as the list sent is temporary and as per the instructions of the IOA, the list can be changed in accordance with the athlete replacement policy due to injury, illness and other special circumstance subject to approval by the Commonwealth Games Federation Executive Board (CGF). He would also state that the deadline for athlete replacement request is till 4.00 p.m. local time of July 22, 2014. He states that list of athletes prepared by the Selection Committee, which is alleged to have been sent by respondent No. 4/respondent No. 2 to the Commonwealth Games Committee is illegal, contrary to the Code and need to be recalled back and a fresh list, in terms of the Code, need to be prepared.