Legitimate Expectations Must Yield To Public Interest: Patna High Court Affirms Cancellation Of Ju-Jitsu Athletes’ Direct Appointment As Sub-Inspectors

The Court was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the cancellation of the petitioners’ candidatures for appointment under the sports quota, following an enquiry into the validity of their medals at a Senior National Ju-Jitsu Championship.

A Single Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, while dismissing the writ petition, examined the interplay between sports governance, administrative scrutiny, and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16, and 21, and observed: “The doctrine of legitimate expectation, invokedby the petitioners from their merit list inclusions and preparatory directives, merits particular attention. This principle, as evolved in Indian law, protects reasonablereliance on official promises or practices but is not absolute. It yields to overriding public interest, such as preventing quota misuse through fraudulent or irregular claims”.

Background

The petitioners, who claimed to have won medals at a Senior National Ju-Jitsu Championship, applied for direct appointment as Sub-Inspectors under the 2023 Rules, which provide employment benefits to outstanding sportspersons. Their names appeared in the provisional and final merit lists, and recommendations for appointment were issued.

Subsequently, communications from the Ju-Jitsu Association of India raised doubts regarding their participation. This led to the cancellation of their recommendations. Earlier proceedings before the High Court resulted in a direction for the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to conduct an enquiry.

The enquiry report highlighted significant irregularities in the conduct of the championship, including a lack of centralised documentation, unsigned score sheets, absence of athlete IDs, casual communication methods for invitations, and conflicts of interest within the association’s internal enquiry mechanism. It was also noted that the association’s national recognition had lapsed due to non-compliance with the National Sports Federation Portal requirements, and that no registered state-level association existed at the relevant time.

The petitioners contended that the enquiry was perfunctory, that they were penalised for administrative lapses of the federation, and that cancellation violated principles of natural justice and their constitutional rights.

Court’s Observation

The Patna Court undertook a detailed examination of the Bihar Outstanding Sports Persons Direct Appointment Rules, 2023. It noted that the Rules were notified under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and were intended to reward verifiable sporting excellence.

Interpreting the expression “national competitions” purposively, the Court held that such competitions must derive legitimacy from National Sports Federations recognised under the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011. Recognition of a federation is not a mere formality but a cornerstone of credibility. The Court relied upon precedents emphasising that compliance with the Sports Code is mandatory and that recognition cannot continue in the face of non-compliance.

The lapse in renewal of recognition of the Ju-Jitsu Association for the relevant year, coupled with documented irregularities in the conduct of the championship, casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the event. The Court observed that federations bear an inescapable responsibility to maintain recognition and proper documentation, and athletes cannot derive statutory benefits from events clouded by institutional irregularities.

On the allegation of bias in the internal enquiry of the association, the Court referred to principles laid down in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) and reiterated that conflict of interest in adjudicatory processes vitiates credibility. The fact that individuals involved in organising the event participated in verifying participation raised legitimate concerns.

With respect to natural justice, the Court held that the enquiry process provided an adequate opportunity to the petitioners and the federation to present their case, including virtual hearings and submission of supporting material. While non-direct supply of the enquiry report was raised, the Court found substantial compliance with audi alteram partem principles, noting that natural justice is flexible and contextual.

On constitutional scrutiny, the Court held that the impugned action did not violate Articles 14 or 16. The classification between verified and doubtful achievements had a rational nexus with the objective of ensuring integrity in public appointments. Citing the principle that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality, the Court concluded that the State’s action was founded on relevant considerations.

The Court then addressed the doctrine of legitimate expectation. While inclusion in merit lists and issuance of preparatory directions created a procedural expectation of fairness, the Court underscored that no substantive right to appointment crystallised. The Court observed that legitimate expectation must yield where overriding public interest demands verification and prevention of misuse of sports quotas. It held that preventing fraudulent or irregular claims under a quota system constitutes compelling public interest.

Highlighting broader implications for sports governance in India, particularly in resource-constrained states like Bihar, the Court noted that “while the 2023 Rules admirably promote talent, they must be insulated from federations’ lapses, …edge cases like Ju-Jitsu highlight vulnerabilities in emerging sports, where limited sponsorships excuse neither poor documentation nor recognition failures”.

The Court, while stating that “penalising athletes for organisers’ faults risks discouraging participation, yet allowing unverified claims invites fraud”, further stressed that “reforms, such as mandatory digitised records or pre-event affiliation checks, could bridge this gap, aligning with the Sports Code’s vision”.

Conclusion

Concluding that “the petitioners’ claims, though sympathetic, falter against the substantive requirements of the 2023 Rules and the enquiry’s findings, and the doubts on JAI’s recognition and event authenticity are insurmountable” the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Bijay Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Appearances

Petitioners: Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate; Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate

Respondents: Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr. Advocate, Jitendra Kumar Roy, SC; U.K. Singh; Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Manmeet Singh Gulati; Harishikesh; Chandramauli Kumar (Advocates)

Click here to read/download Judgment