HC sets month’s deadline for UT

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 14

Noting that the pleas of an international-level handball player for the grant of appropriate sports certificate “fell on deaf ears”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set just over a month’s deadline for the UT administration to seek instructions and respond.

The deadline by Justice Rajan Gupta of the High Court came on a writ petition filed by Veena Rani against the Chandigarh Administration and another respondent. As the case came up for resumed hearing before the Bench, Justice Gupta was told that the petitioner was selected to represent India as a part of the women handball team.

The Bench was further told that the petitioner went to Thailand and participated in 12th Asian Handball Championship held at Bangkok in November, 2008. She was even issued an identity card and a participation certificate. The petitioner, on her return to India, applied for a sports gradation certificate in accordance with her entitlement on the basis of her participation in the international event. Taking up her plea, the authorities concerned granted the petitioner a grade ‘C’ certificate. Aggrieved by the action of the authorities concerned in not issuing appropriate certificate to her on the basis of her credentials, the petitioner moved the Court. The petitioner claimed she was entitled to grade ‘A’ certificate for international participation and also for donning the Indian colour in the 12th Asian Handball Championship.

The Bench was told that the petitioner submitted a representation to the competent authority — Director (Sports), Chandigarh, for the grant of the gradation certificate in accordance to her entitlement. “However, all her requests fell on deaf ears,” Justice Gupta noted in his detailed order.

Faced with the situation, the counsel representing UT Administration urged the Bench to grant him additional time to seek instructions from the authorities concerned on the issue. Accepting the request, Justice Gupta in the interest of justice granted an opportunity to the UT counsel.

Fixing the case for a date in September, Justice Gupta also directed a senior UT functionary to remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing. He was also asked to bring along with him the relevant record.