Expert Committee's evaluation of sports merit takes precedence over a mere numerical count of medals in recruitment.

The petitioner (Sakthivelu, V.) and the sixth respondent (Sathesh Vayalil) participated in a recruitment process for the post of Junior Administrative Assistant at JIPMER under the Sports Quota.

Two posts were available; the dispute concerned the selection for the second post. The petitioner was selected by an Expert Committee based on a Gold Medal in the Asian Tennis Ball Cricket Championship 2023.

The sixth respondent, who held multiple medals in "Atya Patya" (including South Asian championships), challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The CAT allowed the application and directed the selection of the sixth respondent.

The petitioner, who was already serving in the post since August 2023 but was not impleaded as a party before the CAT, filed this Writ Petition challenging the CAT's order.

1. Whether the selection of a candidate under the Sports Quota should be based on the numerical count of medals or the relative merit/hierarchy of the sporting events.

2. Whether the CAT erred in passing an order affecting the petitioner’s employment without impleading him as a party to the proceedings.

The Court applied the principle of judicial restraint regarding the decisions of Expert Committees, asserting that courts should not substitute their views for those of specialized selection bodies.

The court relied on the principles of natural justice, specifically that a selected candidate whose appointment is challenged must be impleaded as a necessary party.

The court noted government policies from the Ministry of Home Affairs which establish a hierarchy of sports achievements, where higher-level international participation (e.g., Asian Championships) takes precedence over lower-level regional participation (e.g., South Asian Championships).

The Court found that the JIPMER authorities and an Expert Committee had rationally assessed the relative merits of both candidates. While the sixth respondent had a higher number of medals, the petitioner’s medal was from an "Asian Championship" involving all Asian countries, whereas the respondent’s medals were from "South Asian" competitions involving fewer countries.

The Court emphasized that the Expert Committee followed a recognized hierarchy where the level of competition determines merit rather than the sheer volume of medals.

The Court observed that the CAT failed to consider the relative merits properly because the petitioner—a necessary party who had already been working for three years—was never heard.

The Court held that the failure to implead the petitioner before the CAT was a fatal procedural error.

The Madras High Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the CAT’s order dated 19.10.2023 in O.A.No.632 of 2023, and upheld the petitioner's appointment.