Dinesh Kumar Sharma JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
1. The writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 9488/2022 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
a) A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to include the Petitioner in the list of 4 selected players for the women's table tennis team for the Commonwealth Games 2022;
b) A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to revoke the ratification granted to the 4 players selected by Respondent No. 1 for the women's table tennis team for the Commonwealth Games 2022, in violation of the existing criteria and in contravention of the provisions of the Code;
c) A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to refrain from ratifying any selections made by Respondent No. I for the women's table tennis team for the Commonwealth Games 2022, without strictly adhering to the Existing Criteria and the provisions of the Code.
2. The writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 9490/2022 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
A) A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to include the Petitioner in the list of 4 selected players for the men's table tennis team for the Commonwealth Games 2022;
B) A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to revoke the ratification granted to the 4 players selected by Respondent No. 1 for the men's table tennis team for the Commonwealth Games 2022, in violation of the Existing Criteria and in contravention of the provisions of the Code;
C) A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to refrain from ratifying any selections made by Respondent no. 1 for the men's table tennis team for the Commonwealth Games 2022, without strictly adhering to the Existing Criteria and the provisions of the Code.
3. The sum and substance of the grievances of the petitioners is that their names have not been included in the final selection list by the Selection Committee and the Committee of Administrator despite fulfilling the selection criteria as laid down by the federation. The grievances of the learned counsels for the petitioners is that the process of the selection has not been adopted correctly and the persons who have been included in the list or being proposed to be sent to participate in the commonwealth game are much below in the ranking as compared to the petitioners before this court. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also challenged the credentials of the members of the Selection Committee on the ground that some of the members are who either themselves in person or their spouse are running the academy and therefore they should not entitled to be included in the selection committee. The plea of the petitioners is that their names should be included in the names of the panel to be sent for participating in the commonwealth games.
4. Per contra, the plea taken by respondent No. 1 is that this court does not have domain to enter into the selection process of the selection criteria. It has been submitted that the names have already been finalized and have been sent to the Indian Olympic Association on 07.06.2022 and now the Indian Olympic Association might have sent the names further. Mr. Moazzam Khan, learned counsel for respondent no. 1/TTFI has relied upon Shumel vs. Union of India and Neha Rathi vs. Union of India. Learned counsel submits that a b........