Guru Nanak Dev University v. Union Of India & ORS

$~13 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7390/2016 & CM 30314/2016 GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY ..... Petitioner Through Mr Himinder Lal, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr Vijay Joshi, Senior Panel Counsel and Mr sushil Kumar Pandey, G.P., Ms Neha Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

Mr abhishek Ghai, Advocate for Mr Vijay Pal, Advocate for Respondent No. 8.

Mr Rajinder Dhawan and Mr B.S. Rana, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 and R9.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 03.11.2017 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging the award of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (hereafter 'MAKA') Trophy 2015-2016 by respondent no.1.

2.

The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the marks claimed by the petitioenr have been reduced by 20% on the ground that the petitioner's claim that it had participated in an "Asian Cup" has been found to be incorrect.

Mr Lal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states the petitioner had participated in Sultan Azlan Shah Hockey Cup, which is an International Hockey Tournament organized under the International Hockey Federation. According to the petitioner, the said tournament is one of Asia's

premier Hockey Tournament. Mr Lal states that the petitioner had taken credit for participation in the said tournament as participation in a tournament covered under the category of "Asian Cup". This contention is stoutly disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents who states that no such averment has been made in the petition. 3.

Be that as it may, the question whether any tournament falls within any of the categories as indicated in the guidelines (for taking credit/marks) issued by respondent no.1 would necessarily have to be clarified by respondent no.1 alone. In the circumstances, if there is any ambiguity in the guidelines or any clarification is required by the petitioner for ascertaining whether a tournament falls within any of the categories specified in the guidelines published by the Government of India, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation to the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs, and the said Department would provide the necessary clarification. 4.

MAKA Trophy for the year 2016 had been awarded and this Court is informed that the said Trophy has already been awarded for the year 2017 as well. Thus, no relief with regard to the award of the said Trophy for those years can be granted. Insofar as the award of the in trophy future is concerned, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek the necessary clarification as to the marking scheme as observed hereinbefore, and claim the appropriate marks in accordance with such clarification. 5.

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 03, 2017

pkv