Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by Mr. Rohit Kumar (petitioner 1) s/o Mr. Surender Singh and Mr. Narender (petitioner 2) S/o Mr. Hoshiyar Singh, who are both Kabaddi players and were selected for Junior World Championship (Boys) which is scheduled to commence on 26-02-2023 at Urmia, Iran. In the instant petition, the petitioners are challenging the rejection order on medical fitness grounds based on a medical test conducted by the Sports Authority of India (SAI). Prathiba M Singh, J., held that the prescriptions for both players are identical and do not inspire the confidence of the Court, thus, the Court permitted the petitioners to participate and represent India in the Junior World Championship (Boys), in Iran as they have recovered as per medical advice.
The petitioners' case is that they were trained at the coaching camp organized by SAI (Respondent 3), however, during practice, the Petitioners suffered minor injuries. The Petitioners got their medical check-up done with the doctor from SAI and as per the prescription, the petitioners were advised ‘Review after ten days'. Admittedly, after the review, the Petitioners were sent to the training camp in Thyagaraj stadium, Delhi, and have undergone training. However, suddenly, on 21-02-2023 a medical was conducted by SAI, informing their coach last evening that they would not be joining the Junior World Championship (Boys) team. Hence the present petition.
The Court noted that on perusal of an email dated 22-02-2023 sent by Mr. Shiv Sharma, Executive Director teams SAI, it was clear that it merely states that without proper recovery the players ‘could not' participate in the upcoming world cup. A perusal of the prescription on record also shows that the players do not have any pain or any complaints. The doctor has merely given a remark ‘return for gradual training'.
The court remarked that these players are part of the junior team which has been selected by Respondent 2, they may not even qualify in the future to participate in the junior team in asmuch as they may be age barred because one of the Petitioners is 17 years of age and the other Petitioner is 19 years of age. Both the Petitioners are in their late teens and a decision to not send them to represent India, that too at such a late stage, without proper grounds, would be demoralizing not only to the Petitioners but also to the team.
The Court concluded that after taking rest for a few days post injury, they have undergone the requisite training and coaching and have ‘recovered' as per the doctor who has suggested only gradual training.
Thus, the Court directed the Administrator and SAI to take immediate steps for getting the requisite documentation in place and take all necessary steps for enabling the Petitioners to travel to Iran along with the team.
[Rohit Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1045, decided on 23-02-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hemant Phalphev, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain & Mr. Anand Thumbagil, Advocates for petitioner
Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Pinky Pawar & Mr. Aakash Pathak, Advocate for R-1 & 3. (M:8448438901) Mr. Nandita Rao & Mr. Kunal Prakash, Advocates for R-2.
