Constitution of India – Art.14 – The appellant-Association selected respondent no.3 for the coaching assignment concerning the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team in connection with the preparatory programme for the Asian Games, 2026 – The appellant addressed a communication to the competent authorities of the Union Territory requesting that the services of respondent no.3 be made available – No response – Writ petition by the appellant before the High Court – The Single Judge of the High Court directed respondent nos.1 and 2 to accord provisional permission to respondent no.3 – Permission was not granted – The Government Order No.25-JK(YSS) of 2026 dated 19.06.2026 stated that respondent no.3 was under inquiry and treated this circumstance as disentitling her to permission – Thereafter, contempt proceedings were initiated – The Single Judge of the High Court directed for production of further material and the personal appearance of the concerned Commissioner/Secretary – In the meanwhile, the Union Territory had instituted LPA – The Division Bench of the High Court held that no enforceable legal right had been established and it upheld the action of the competent authority in view of the applicable Conduct Rules, Government instructions, pending departmental proceedings and absence of requisite clearances – Correctness:
Held: Art.14 of the Indian Constitution operates upon the exercise of administrative discretion as much as it does upon a statutory decision – Where an authority is vested with discretion, it must consider the matter on relevant considerations, exclude extraneous considerations, apply its mind to the purpose for which the request has been made and act within a reasonable time – The appellant was not seeking the services of respondent no.3 for an indefinite private engagement – The request emanated from a recognised National Sports Federation and concerned preparation of an Indian National Team for an identified international sporting event – The request was therefore required to be considered in that factual setting – In a time-sensitive matter, delay may itself defeat the very purpose for which administrative power is required to be exercised – An order of a constitutional court, for so long as it remains operative, binds the parties to the proceeding – If the official respondents considered compliance impossible or contrary to the governing service rules, the course available to them was to seek clarification, modification or stay of the judicial direction before the competent court – This Court is unable to approve the approach whereby the existence of a pending inquiry was treated as an automatic and conclusive disqualification – A relevant circumstance may legitimately influence the decision, however, it cannot be converted into an inflexible rule unless the governing statutory provision so mandates – The present appeal succeeds on the broader and independent grounds relating to failure of timely consideration, non-application of mind to the nature of the national assignment – By the impugned judgment dated 11.08.2026 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside insofar as it dismisses the writ petition and denies relief to the appellant in respect of the current national sporting assignment of respondent no.3 – The Government Order No.25JK(YSS) of 2026 dated 19.06.2026, insofar as it operates to deny respondent no.3 permission/NOC and relieving for the national sporting assignments forming the subject matter of WP(C) No.987 of 2026 is also set aside – Respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to issue the necessary relieving order/No Objection Certificate/permission in favour of respondent no.3. [Paras 22-24, 29, 31, 35]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.