Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

V.K.JAIN, J.

The only issue involved in these writ petitions is as to whether the respondents are entitled to determine the age of a person seeking to play in an Under 16 Cricket Tournament, solely on the basis of a medical test known as Tanner-White house-3 Method (TW-3 Method), even if the determination on the basis of the aforesaid test is contrary to the age of the candidate as reflected in documents, such as Birth Certificate, Passport and School Certificate.

2. The petitioners before this Court seeking to play in an Under 16 Cricket Tournament organized by the respondents in the year 2012-13, their father filled up forms provided by BCCI for verification of the age of the petitioners. As per the norms of the respondents, those who are born on or after 1.9.1996 were eligible to participate in the said tournament.

The petitioners underwent the age determination through Tanner

- Whitehouse 3 (TW-3) method at Fortis Hospital, New Delhi and on the basis of said test the age of the petitioner in W.P(C) No.5284/2013 as on 1.9.2012 was determined to be 16 years and 2 months, thereby rendering him ineligible to participate in the Under -16 Cricket Tournament in the year 2012-2013. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.5283/2013 was determined as 16 years and 5 months on the said date. However, he was given benefit of 6 months and held eligible to play in Under-16 team. Though he was permitted to play in Under-16 Team, he is also aggrieved from the age determined from use of TW3 method since the age so determined is fed in the database of BCCI and will remain valid throughout his career, meaning thereby that if he wants to play in the under-19 cricket team, his age as on 1.9.2012 will be taken as 16 years and 5 months. Being aggrieved from the said determination, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. In its counter affidavit, the respondent no.1 - Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has relied upon the order passed by this Court on 11.10.2013 in CM No.14211/2013, thereby taking a stand that the age determination by TW-3 method was carried out in accordance with the aforesaid order of this Court. They have further stated in the said counter affidavit that faced with the menace of players making false representation with respect to their age and playing in age groups for which they were not eligible to play, thereby denying the chance to the players of appropriate age to play in various tournaments, BCCI felt need for a scientific method for determination of age of the persons seeking to play in such tournaments. The BCCI after several deliberations, resolved to conduct the bone age test for age verification of the players by the aforesaid TW3 method, which according to BCCI has been adopted by various sports bodies across the world. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that TW3 method of bone maturity is being used in all ACC, Under-16 tournaments since 2005 and the accuracy rate of the aforesaid test is +/- six (6) months. The BCCI has accordingly recommended to all State Cricket Associations including respondent No.2-DDCA, to adopt the aforesaid test, for determining the age of the players seeking to play in such tournaments. The aforesaid test, according to the respondent, rates the bone wrist and hand up to 16.5 years. The BCCI is giving benefit of doubt to the players up to six (6) months since there can be an error of +/- six (6) months in the age determined by use of the aforesaid method. TW3 method, according to the respondents, measures skeletal maturity of a subject by making use of the patterns of development of several bones in the hand and using their shape and degree of fusing of the bones to arrive at the bone age of the person in question, thus, concluding what the subject‟s actual age is.

Earlier the BCCI was adopting a method called Greulich & Pyle (GP method) in which a margin of error could be +/- two (2) years. The respondents have also relied upon the decision of this Court dated 3.8.2012 in WP (C) No.3789/2012 titled Rajender Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. in support of the stand taken by them.

4. The first question which comes up for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the orders of this Court dated 31.5.2012 and 12.10.2012 passed in WP (C) No.612/2011 Lokniti Foundation versus UOI and others are applicable to this case or not.