Yadava College vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner is an aided College in the city of Madurai. When the second respondent, Sports Development Authority

decided to develop Sports Hostel of Excellence they have chosen for locating for each sport with reference to a particular college, so that the

students can be trained in that particular sport.

In respect of Volley Ball, it was felt that since southern districts are doing well in that game, the center should be located at any one of the

colleges in Madurai city, being the center for southern districts. The petitioner as well as the third respondent College wanted the second

respondent to locate the centre in their premises. It was found by the second respondent Sports Development Authority that both institutions are

having sufficient play field facilities.

But however when he came for actual choosing of the college, preference was given to the third respondent. The second respondent filed a

counter affidavit filed dated 30-06-2005. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is averred as follows:

I submit to state that with reference to para 7, both American College, Madurai and Yadava College, Madurai have sent in their letters

confirming the facilities that they will extent to the players. With reference to para 8, having received letters from both Yadava College, Madurai

and American College, Madurai the Committee of Senior Volleyball Coaches and administrators met on 10-05-2005 at 3.00 PM. At that

meeting, it was decided considering that both the colleges competing with one another to provide equal facilities, it would be best to choose the

college from the players'' point of view. It was then decided in favour of the American College as the credit system is in vogue in the American

College. By virtue of the credit system, all students do not have to attend all subjects being thought in a semester and can pick and choose subjects

of their interest so as to have maximum total number of credits in order to get a degree. This would mean that during a peak season of a player, he

would be able to choose and pick less number of subjects and in an off-season, he would be able to choose more number of subjects. Therefore,

the needs of the player as well as the academic orientation is completely met. It was a well thought out decision considering that several sports

persons in the Sports Hostel of Excellence, Chennai have had major difficulties with regard to keeping pace with Academics. Also, the Principal

American College, Madurai assured the Member-Secretary, SDAT that maximum flexibility in terms of academics would be provided to the

Champion volleyball players in order to enable them to both play the game and the same time secure success in the degree. Also an additional

factor that played a major role was the actual distance between the American College and the Stadium which would be the nerve centre of the

training was only 1.9 kms whereas the actual distance of the Yadava College from the Stadium was 6.2 kms. It was visualized that there would be

difficulties for traveling by the students.

Therefore for the above reasons the choice went in favour of the third respondent College. The grievance of the petitioner is that the College

was given a long rope and also given a promise that the centre will be located in their College. A reference is also made to the correspondence

between them and the second respondent in locating the centre.

Ultimately when the centre was located in the third respondent College, the petitioner aggrieved by the letter dated 08-06-2005 filed the present

writ petition.

The writ petition was admitted on 08-06-2005 and an interim stay of the order dated 26.05.2005 was granted which was also extended from

time to time.

The third respondent filed a counter affidavit justifying the location in their campus by their counter affidavit dated 18-11-2005. In any event, the

second respondent, Sports Development Authority is an independent authority established by the State Government. It is open to them to locate

the centre in a place wanted by them based on the technical advice received by them.

In the present case, the second respondent assigned three reasons for locating the centre at the third respondent college. Firstly, the third

respondent College is an Autonomous College so that the students can have courses in a flexible manner; secondly, it is also found that from the

College to the Academy, it is only 1.5 kms whereas from the petitioner''s College it is more than 6 kms. Therefore, the players will reach the

stadium without any transport difficulties. Thirdly, the offer from the third respondent College was more attractive in as much as the Principal gave

full guarantee to relieve the students wherever necessary.

Under these circumstances, this Court is unable to interfere with the decision of the second respondent which is purely non justifiable and not

amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected

WPMP. No. 5058 of 2005 is also dismissed.