MOHIT SHARMA Vs. B S N L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the advertisement dated 27th November, 2007 whereby applications were invited for appointment against sports quota in Cricket. As per the said Advertisement, three posts were available, namely, Batsman ' one, All Rounder ' two (Batsman-cum-spinner ).

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the BSNL who is present on advance notice has produced before me recommendations of the Selection Committee whereby, mr. Anshul Lamba and Mr. Sushil Kumar were selected. Mr. Anshul Lamba on the basis of his performance and overall assessment was recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee against one post for All Rounder. Mr. Sushil Kumar was recommended for appointment against one post for Batsman. Two other candidates including the petitioner who had appeared were found to be 'average' and not suitable by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee consisted of five Members and had conducted field trials. Mr. Pravin Amre, was the technical Expert. As per the notes of the Selection Committee, field trials consisted of physical exercise, fielding, catch practice, net practice, batting and bowling. Mr. Pravin Amre, as mentioned in the note was the Coach of West zone, Air India and Mumbai Ranji Team and India Blue Team for Challengers trophy. It will not be appropriate for this Court to go into the selection process which was conducted by a five member team comprising of a technical expert of repute. It is difficult for this Court to assess and go into merits and suitability as an appellate authority. Relative merits and demerits of a candidate cannot be examined by this Court, specially when the selection process also included field trials.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner at this stage states that a fresh advertisement was issued by the respondents in March 2008, for filling up of one post of a Batsman. He states that fresh recruitment should have been for a post of an all rounder. In this regard, he has drawn my attention to Annexure p-1. Last date for making the applications was 17th March, 2008. It is for the respondents to decide whether they require a Batsman or an All Rounder. The need and requirements of the respondent can change. This Court cannot make any assessment in this regard. If the petitioner or any person was interested, they could have applied for the said post of Batsman.