BCCI vs BCCI: Sec­re­tary raises doubts over rule change

DNA (Delhi) - - SPORT - Chan­der Shekhar Luthra [email protected]­dia.net

New Delhi: Was the mid­sea­son trans­fer rule change made by the Board of Con­trol of Cricket in In­dia (BCCI) brought in to only ben­e­fit two “spe­cial” play­ers?

This ques­tion has been raised by BCCI act­ing sec­re­tary Amitabh Choud­hary in his let­ter ad­dressed to GM Cricket Syed Saba Karim, nearly two months af­ter the wards of two pow­er­ful gov­ern­ment em­ploy­ees got ben­e­fited by this sur­prise ac­tion. Choud­hary has not only ques­tioned the move, but has termed it unau­tho­rised and un­con­sti­tu­tional.

The changes were made on the in­struc­tion of Com­mit­tee of Ad­min­is­tra­tors (COA) chief Vinod Rai sur­pass­ing even the BCCI Tech­ni­cal Com­mit­tee led by Sourav Gan­guly.

In a mail ad­dressed also to board CEO Rahul Johri, of­fice-bear­ers and tech­ni­cal com­mit­tee chair­man Gan­guly, Choud­hary has ques­tioned how the COA is ad­min­is­trat­ing BCCI’s day-to­day af­fairs. More so given the dif­fer­ences be­tween Rai and other mem­ber Diana Edulji af­ter the way sex­ual ha­rass­ment case was han­dled.

In Oc­to­ber this year, BCCI brought in a mid-sea­son trans­fer rule for play­ers, cit­ing the is­sue faced by gov­ern­ment em­ploy­ees trans­ferred. Ac­cord­ing to the new rule, a player can shift bases to an­other Ranji Tro­phy team if one of his par­ents are trans­ferred to an­other state, without even play­ing any lo­cal tour­na­ments or meet­ing el­i­gi­bil­ity pur­poses of that re­spec­tive state.

The move was brought in without the ap­proval of tech­ni­cal com­mit­tee. It was only af­ter BCCI trea­surer Anirudh Chaud­hary raised ob­jec­tions about such a rule by ex­plain­ing how it only ben­e­fit­ted only two play­ers — Pratyush Singh of Tripura and Ro­han Choud­hary of Mi­zo­ram — that even for­mer Gan­guly also raised his voice.

Pratyush, who played for Jhark­hand as re­cently as 2018-19 sea­son and also cap­tained Delhi in age-group tour­na­ments, sought a trans­fer by cit­ing the trans­fer of his fa­ther, an IPS of­fi­cer to Tripura. But cu­ri­ously, his brother Utkarsh Singh con­tin­ues to rep­re­sent Jhark­hand.

The sec­ond player in ques­tion, Ro­han, sought a trans­fer to rep­re­sent Mi­zo­ram as his fa­ther Ku­tub Ud­din Chowdhury, em­ployed with New In­dia As­sur­ance, was posted to Aizwal.

The BCCI sec­re­tary goes on to men­tion in the mail, how Ro­han chose to rep­re­sent Mi­zo­ram, af­ter ex­haust­ing his av­enues else­where.

Ask­ing Karim to ex­plain the rea­son to change the rule as it ben­e­fits only cou­ple of play­ers, Choud­hary wrote: “That there is ab­so­lutely no merit in sin­gling out gov­ern­ment ser­vants for any ben­e­fits be­cause ser­vice con­di­tions with re­gard to trans­fers re­main the same for all cat­e­gories of em­ploy­ees any­where. Be­sides, all cit­i­zens are free to choose their em­ployer/place of em­ploy­ment.”

Amitabh Choud­hary

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.