Did state drop the ball on this sport?

Controversial 2016 GR delisted some sports like ball badminton, from list of those eligible for govt jobs quota; larger HC bench to decide

A Bombay High Court bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor at the Nagpur seat on Thursday referred to a larger bench the controversy arising out of a GR issued by the Maharashtra government in 2016, through which certain sports like ball badminton have been removed from the list of sports for which there is a five per cent job reservation in public service. The bench has urged Chief Justice Dipankar Datta to consitute a larger bench to hear the matter and come up with a proper finding.

This comes after the bench differed on the validity of the GR, as to whether it could be applied retrospectively or not.

The bench was hearing a plea filed by a Gadchiroli resident, Umesh Burande, 30, who has been playing ball badminton for over a decade now. He had challenged the 2016 GR, which removed this sport from the list of sports that entitles players to a five per cent job reservation in public service.

Notably, in 2005 a GR was issued by the state government providing five per cent job reservation for players of sports which aren’t usually played in the Olympics, Asian Games or Commonwealth Games.

The bench held that by removing the sport from the list, the state has acted contrary to its promise made under the 2005 GR.

“Admittedly, Umesh has given almost 10 crucial years of his life for the sport ‘Ball Badminton’ with legitimate expectation that the state would act on its promise to provide 5 per cent reservation in service in government or semi-government department,” the bench noted. “However, by the 2016 GR, suddenly the promise was withdrawn as regards the sport ‘Ball Badminton’. The ultimate result of this GR is nothing but denying the benefit to the persons like the petitioner (Umesh) who have spent long years of their life for sports to win laurels and fame for the state,” the judges held. The bench further noted that “sportspersons like the petitioner who have been denied such benefit cannot get back their important years of life and therefore, such an act on the part of the state to withdraw its promise in highly unreasonable manner, would amount to acting contrary to the ‘Promissory Estoppel’ or the ‘Principle of Legitimate Expectation’.” “Moreover, we are of the opinion that withdrawal of such benefits without giving any future cut-off date for sportspersons like the petitioner, amounts to application of the said GR, with retrospective effect,” the bench said. Accordingly, the bench opined it would be mandatory to examine the effect of withdrawal of benefits of the 2005 GR for ‘ball badminton’, on the prospects of sportspersons like the petitioner, in the light of the promise made to them. “It is in this context this Court is of the opinion that the controversy needs to be put to rest by an authoritative pronouncement of a Larger Bench of this Court,” the bench said, referring the matter to a larger bench.