THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.268 OF 2024 ORDER:- 1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly nature of Certiorarified Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, by granting the following reliefs: a. To call for the entire original records pertaining to the Selection Committee process for selecting the Respondent Nos.15 & 16 for the “Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award” for the year 2023. b. To quash the decision of the Selection Committee in selecting the Respondents Nos.15 & 16 for the „Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award‟ for the year 2023, consequently direct the Respondents to give the said „Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award‟ to the Writ Petitioner for the year 2023. c. To pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice...” 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner herein is recognized by the Government of India, Ministry of Sports, as well as the State Government for the following Awards:- a. Arjuna Award for excellence in Archery by Government of India in the year 2017. b. Exceptional Achievement Award by Government of India in the year 2002. c. Pratibha Puraskar by Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2001. d. India Unbound Excellency Award-2018 for excellence in sports. 2 NV,J WP No.268_2024 e. Pride of Andhra - Apsara Award by Zee TV Telugu for excellence in sports in the year 2018. f. Young Achiever Award by Sakshi Media in the year 2016. g. Krida Ratna Award by Akkineni Foundation, USA in the year 2014. 4. In so far as International Medals are concerned from 2011 to 2023, the petitioner won 20 Gold Medals, 18 Silver Medals and 15 Bronze Medals in the international tournaments. 5. For achieving the above said medals tally and achieving the excellence in the said Sport of Archery, the petitioner had to sacrifice her personal life. In this process, she missed out the normal 'hashal & kushal' life like any other child. The childhood which the petitioner had forsaken for the purpose of excelling in the Sports cannot be brought-back by anyone and she had brought laurels to our Country in all the international sports events wherever participated. The petitioner made our Tiranga flutter very high' in every International Tournament and she believes in the song 'Sare jahan se acha' and 'Jana gana mana' playing at international sports events. 6. In general / basically the Selection Committee which is constituted by the Government of India, decides the conferring of awards. This committee comprises of eminent sports persons, sports journalists / experts / commentators and Government officials. 3 NV,J WP No.268_2024 7. The Committee will determine its own work procedure to be followed at the meetings. But they shall follow the guidelines/criteria, framed by the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, as a policy named Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award. The committee can recommend only one Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award every year, to be given to an individual sports person and in exceptional circumstances the Committee may relax this condition. Owing to such an exception, in the past, several times multiple Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award had been awarded to the sports- persons with spectacular and most outstanding performance in the field of sports over the period of previous four years. The list of such awardees in year wise are filed herewith as material papers along with this Writ Petition. Under this Policy, the criteria to be followed by the Selection Committee is predetermined, where under, 80% weightage marks is given to the Sports persons medals won by them, therefore, it has to be strictly followed by the Selection Committee and they cannot add or subtract or reduce the marks in this 80% category. And the remaining 20% weightage marks will be given by the Selection Committee Members, where the discretion given to the Selection Committee is very limited. The Selectors shall allocate their 20% Marks considering the 'profile of the Sports person', standard of the 'Sport Event' in which the applicants had won medals. 4 NV,J WP No.268_2024 8. While so, the petitioner‟s individual medal tally score as per the above said scheme is a total of 148.74 points. The Respondents Nos.15 and 16, individually got total medal points as per the scheme is only 58.5. If the formula given under the scheme is applied, 148.74 is equal to 80 Marks and the Respondents Nos.15 and 16 score is 58.5 x 80/148.74 = 31.46 Marks. Therefore, it is apparently clear that Respondents Nos.15 and 16, had got very less marks than the petitioner. Even assuming for a moment that the Selection Committee has not given any marks to the petitioner and had given the complete 20% marks to the Respondents Nos.15 & 16, if we add the said 20% to the 31.46 marks, it would come to 51.46 marks still the points obtained by the Respondents Nos.15 and 16 is way far behind the petitioner‟s score of 80. Therefore, denial of the said award to the petitioner and conferring the said award to Respondents Nos.15 and 16, is in gross violation of the said scheme, aggrieved by this illegal, arbitrary, unjust perverse decision, filed this writ petition. 9. The petitioner being a Sports person, aware of that we should behave decently but the said behaviour cannot jeopardise the petitioner‟s fundamental and statutory rights earned by the petitioner under the said scheme. Having no other alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioner approaching this Hon'ble Court, while doing so, the petitioner not mudslinging anybody or bringing dis-repute to the sport, because the petitioner is a sports 5 NV,J WP No.268_2024 spirited person. Therefore, the petitioner refraining from making the allegations of partisanism, favouritism or mala fides, or attributing them to anybody. But the straight away impugning the selection process to be in violation of the Policy. 10. Sri Jupudi V.K. Yagna Dutt, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that every year, the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Department of Sports invites applications for Sports Awards under various categories viz. Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award, Dronacharya Award, Arjuna Award, Dhyan Chand Award, Rashtriya Khel Protsahan Puruskar and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (MAKA) Trophy. The Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award is given to recognise the spectacular and most outstanding performance in the field on sports by a sports person over a period of four years immediately preceding the year during which the award is to be given. As per the scheme guidelines which are available in public domain, the award is decided by a High Level Selection Committee constituted by the Government of India, headed by the retired Judge of the Supreme Court / High Court as Chairperson, and eminent sports persons / sports journalist / sports experts as members. As per the criteria for giving Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award to sports persons, 80 percent weightage is given for the medals won in various international championships and sports events of the disciplines covered in the Olympic Games (Summer, 6 NV,J WP No.268_2024 Winter and Paralympics), the Asian Games and the Commonwealth Games during the land Paralyard and 20 percent weightage will be accorded by the Selection Committee after assessment of the eligible sports persons, keeping in view factors like profile and standard of the sports events in which he or she has won medals. The Selection Committee makes a competitive selection considering the large number of applications and sports disciplines. 11. It is further stated that as per clause 11 of the 'criteria for giving Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Awards, Selection Committee may not mechanically recommend Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna to the recipient of the highest marks across disciplines. But in a particular sports discipline, award will be recommended only for the recipient of the highest aggregate marks. As per clause 12 of the 'criteria for giving Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Awards' to sportspersons prescribed in the scheme, the recommendation of the Selection Committee is placed before the Hon'ble Minister for Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India (Gol) for the final decision. It is further stated that under clause 11.9 of the Scheme, the decision of the Government of India in respect of matters covered by the scheme and interpretation of the provisions of this scheme shall be final and no appeal shall lie against them. This fact too has been clearly stated and is available in public domain. 7 NV,J WP No.268_2024 12. It is further stated that the Selection Committee is headed by a Retired Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and other members are also eminent personalities in their fields. They function as per the guidelines of the Scheme of the National Sports Awards and the decisions of India are taken in a democratic manner after detailed examination of the applications. Hence the Selection Committee members do no act in their individual capacity and therefore the names of the Selection Committee members and also the two recipients of the Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award for the year 2023 may be removed from the list of respondents. 13. A large number of applications will be received every year for the prestigious awards, amongst them the Selection Committee chooses the awardee based on objective analysis. This year a total of 55 eligible applications have been received only in the category of Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna, amongst them two sportspersons for Team Performance have been recommended by the Selection Committee for the award. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Selection Committee do not have any liberty or power either reduce the marks or to add additional marks to any of the applicants and they shall follow the policy under the scheme as it is which is a mandatory one. Any deviation or violation of the said scheme by the Selection Committee Members is nothing but contrary to the terms of scheme and also the objects set out by the 8 NV,J WP No.268_2024 creators of the said scheme. As such, the impugned action is illegal, arbitrary and perverse, thereby it infringes Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the case in hand, the decision making process of the Selection Committee is illegal, unreasonable and in violation of the terms of the scheme. As such, there is no expertise involved in the selection process and only to make an objective consideration of records achieved by the applicants by applying the terms of the scheme or policy. He further submits that the Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award is considered as one of the highest awards in the field of sports awarded to the best selected sports person of the year. In case in hand, the selection committee did not adhere to the mandated terms of the policy in selecting Respondent Nos.15 and 16 as the recipients of the Award for the year 2023. 15. This robust Responsibility on the selection committee should only be exercised within the scope mandated terms of the selection scheme and as per the scheme the selection committee does not have any discretion to change or revise the 80% of the points that was earned by the petitioner by the medals conferred upon her. Even though she did not confer any points in respect of rest of 20% of the weightage still the petitioner secured highest points as per the scheme than Respondent Nos.15 and 16, moreover, they are not nearer to the petitioner and there is a huge gap. 9 NV,J WP No.268_2024 16. The aggregate marks obtained by the petitioner as well as Respondent Nos.15 and 16 clearly establishes the petitioner is more eligible for such selection than Respondent Nos.15 and 16. Therefore, the selection Committee failed in strictly to follow the terms of selection scheme. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the ratio rendered by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Tatpal Singh Jaggi and others vs. Union of India and others1 and wherein it is observed as under: 82. The objective for the establishment of Puraskar and awarding is to achieve the larger goal of sports promotion in India. India spends over Rs.600 crores annually in funding sports schemes and organizations (revised estimate for 2012-2013 being Rs. 659 crores; for 2010-2011 (estimates) being Rs. 3565-of which Rs. 2067 crores was for Commonwealth Games and Rs. 3709 crores for 2009-10 of which the spending for Commonwealth Games was Rs. 2883 crores). It is the largest patron in the country, providing direct subsidies by way of grants, special schemes for spotting talent, creation of infrastructure, giving indirect encouragement such as customs duty exemptions for import of equipment, building stadia, bearing air fare and other expenditure. The use of these funds is a matter of public concern. If, in such utilization, infrastructure is created, for which an organization is to be credited with innovation, optimal use, or maximization of resource creation of some facility which can enable excellence in some sport for which awards are to be given, the body recommending the individual or organization has to carry out its task with seriousness. The monetary terms of the award may be unimportant; however, the recognition and honour bestowed on the organization is official certification of the fact. 1 (2015) SCC Online Del 11602 10 NV,J WP No.268_2024 18. Learned counsel also relied upon the ratio rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Ram Pravesh Singh and others vs. State of Bihar and others2 and also in Centre for PIL and Another vs. Union of India and Another3 held that if any selection is made is violation of Statutory Rules is liable to be quashed. 19. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner prayed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus which cannot be granted in the present case in hand. He further submits that the petitioner does not attributed any malafides or unreasonableness on part of the selection committee. Therefore, the selection by the selection committee is fair and reasonable and as per the object of the scheme. The same cannot be called for by way of judicial review. 20. Learned counsel further contended that the selection committee as per Clause 11-criteria for awarding subject awards, the selection committee may not mechanically recommend the recipient of the highest marks across the discipline but in a particular sports discipline awards will be recommended only for a recipient of the highest aggregate marks. He further submits that as per the clause 12 of the criteria of the scheme that the recommendation of 2 (2006) 8 SCC 381 3 (2011) 4 SCC 1 11 NV,J WP No.268_2024 the selection committee is to be placed before the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports / Respondent No.1 for the financial decision and as per clause 11.9 of the scheme. The decision of Respondent No.1 is final and no appeal was against the them. Therefore once the final decision was arrived by Respondent No.1 in compliance of the scheme, this Court shall refrain from judicial review. He further submits that the selection committee was headed by the retired Hon‟ble Judge of Supreme court of India and other eminent personalities in their fields. They function as per selection guidelines of the scheme of the national sports code and the decision will be taken in democratic manner after detailed examination of the applications. 21. Therefore, arraying of all the members of the selection committee and in their individual capacity including two recipients for the award is unwarranted. He further submits that the sports awards to the athlete / coaches is the domain of the Government of India in recognition of their achievements and for encouragement and as such claim of award by any athlete / player / coach is not a matter of right. As such, there is no infringement of any legal right of the petitioner. As such the present writ petition is liable to be rejected. 22. Learned counsel for the Respondents also relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Hindustan 12 NV,J WP No.268_2024 Development Corporation4 and also the ratio laid down by the High Court of Delhi in Shri Sunil Tanwar vs. Union of India and others5. 23. Heard Sri Unnam Akhil Chowdary, learned counsel representing Sri Unnam Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. 24. That to the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has no locus is contrary to the settled proposition of law as profounded by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and also due to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, for the reason, that the selection committee itself is appointed under the statutory scheme and the committee under the scheme has been discharging public duties, if any mistake or error has been committed by the committee who discharging public duties, such action certainly is amenable to extraordinary jurisdiction and subject to judicial review of this Court under Article 13 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of discharging public duties by the Selection Committee, the petitioner was deprived from selection. Therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved, then it has created right in favour of the petitioner to seek relief under the strict enforcement of the statutory terms of the scheme. 4 1993 (3) SCC 499 5 2019:DHC:3100; W.P.(C) 12060/2018, dated 01.07.2019 13 NV,J WP No.268_2024 25. Apart from the petitioner vehemently contended that the members of the selection committee are discharging their public duty as a public functionary and if any mistake or error has been committed by the committee in discharging such public duties, which results in violation of fundamental or legal rights of the applicant. The said function of the Selection Committee is always subject to judicial review of the Hon‟ble Court under Article 13 of the Constitution of India. If the selection committee strictly not followed the terms of the scheme a legal right has been accrued in favour of the petitioner to seek for the strict enforcement of the selection scheme. As stated that the petitioner being a sports-spirited person, she did not choose to mudslinging against anyone or bringing disrepute to the sports, as such, she is refraining from making allegations or mala fides or attributing anything to anybody. However, the petitioner pleaded that there is an apparent error in the selection process which is sufficient to maintain writ petition is valid and sustainable. 26. The fact remains that the petitioner herein is a national and international medals awardee in the discipline of Archery. In fact, the petitioner was awarded with Arjuna Award for her excellence, Pratibha Pursakar, India Unbound Excellency Award and also achievement of 20 Gold Medals, 18 Silver Medals and 15 Bronze Medals internationally for the period from 2011-2023. Moreover, the Sport “Archery” is one of the well 14 NV,J WP No.268_2024 recognized Olympic and world championship individual and Team sport and also one of the most popular age old sports in India. 27. It appears that the petitioner herein due to her individual tally she achieved points of 148.74 which is equal to 80 marks and unofficial Respondent Nos.15 and 16, who were selected for the subject medal would have achieved points 51.46 including interview of 20 marks out of 100 marks. In comparing the scores of the petitioner as well as the unofficial Respondents, the petitioner is much ahead to the unofficial Respondents even if the marks 20% of the marks was awarded to Respondent Nos.15 and 16, which can be awarded at interview by the Selection Committee, certainly their marks are very much less to the petitioner and around 51.46 marks only. Therefore, the petitioner was ignored, even though she secured more medals at international level and neither assigned any reasons nor informed that this year Award is reserved for Team Badminton Sport. 28. As contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents that the selection of the recipient for the award is not purely on the basis points/marks achieved by the particular sports person but it would be in a comprehensive manner mostly selection of particular discipline for that particular year is the sole criteria and accordingly for year 2023, the selectors selected team discipline in Badminton rather than individual discipline. As such, Respondent Nos.15 and 16 were selected for the subject award and 15 NV,J WP No.268_2024 the final decision or selection was arrived by the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs and it became final. The said decision cannot be challenged in appeal and it is not amenable for judicial review, for the reason to keep sanctity to the Award as well as selection process by a vibrant committee. Hence, it cannot be interfered. The said contention is not supported by sound reasons and contrary to the principles of judicial review as held in Centre for PIL and Another vs. Union of India and Another (3 supra). 29. In Centre for PIL and Another vs. Union of India and Another (3 supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as under: 63. As stated above, we need to keep in mind the difference between judicial review and merit review. As stated above, in this case the judicial determination is confined to the integrity of the decision making process undertaken by the HPC in terms of the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 2003 Act. If one carefully examines the judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case the facts indicate that the High Court had sat in appeal over the personal integrity of the Chairman and Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission in support of the collateral attack on the selections made by the State Public Service Commission. In that case, the High Court had failed to keep in mind the difference between judicial and merit review. Further, this Court found that the appointments of the Chairperson and Members of Haryana Public Service Commission was in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. In that case, there was no issue as to the legality of the decision making process. On the contrary the last sentence of para 9 supports our above reasoning when it says that it is always open to the Court to set aside the decision (selection) of the Haryana Public Service Commission if such decision is vitiated by the influence of extraneous considerations or if such selection is made in breach of the statute or the rules. 16 NV,J WP No.268_2024 30. On perusal of the entire scheme and national sports code and even as per submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents, no where, it was suggested that the selection committee can choose for particular discipline by de-horsing the individual merit of the applicants. Certainly the petitioner herein is a meritorious applicant than Respondent Nos.15 and 16. It is further contended that getting of Award is not an inherent right of the applicant and conferring the Award would not based upon mathematical formula, for which he relied upon ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as stated above i.e. Shri Sunil Tanwar vs. Union of India and others (5 supra) and Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (4 supra). 31. In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (4 supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court explained the nature and scope of the doctrine of „legimate expectation‟ thus: "For legal purposes, the expectation cannot be the same as anticipation. It is different from a wish, a desire or a hope nor can it amount to a claim or demand on the ground of a right. However earnest and sincere a wish, a desire or a hope may be and however confidently one may look to them to be fulfilled, they by themselves cannot amount to an assertable expectation and a mere disappointment does not attract legal consequences. A pious hope even leading to a moral obligation cannot amount to a legitimate expectation. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in regular and natural sequence. Again it is distinguishable from a genuine expectation. Such expectation should be justifiably legitimate and protectable. Every such legitimate expectation does not by 17 NV,J WP No.268_2024 itself fructify into a right and therefore it does not amount to a right in the conventional sense." 32. In Shri Sunil Tanwar vs. Union of India and others (5 supra), the High Court of Delhi observed as under: 26. It is also necessary to observe that Awards are conferred as an incentive and as such there is no inherent right vested with the respondent to receive such Awards. It is also necessary to recognize that such awards cannot be based on a mathematical formula. There is a significant subjective element in the decision making process which cannot be captured in an objective marking scheme. The respondents must necessarily have a wider discretion in making such decisions. 33. As contended by the learned Standing counsel for the Respondents while scrutinizing the applicants they would select particular discipline at their discussion basing upon the scenario prevailed in a particular year and more meritorious in that particular discipline would be the criteria for selection of recipient for the award is not at all suggested by this scheme. It is relevant to make a point here that if the selection committee or Ministry of Sports and Youth came to an understanding that the subject Award should be reserved in a particular year for a particular discipline. It is better to call applications in that particular discipline only. Since this year is reserved for a particular sports discipline. But, in the case in hand, the Respondents invited applications from all the sports disciplines. Therefore, the selection of a particular discipline is contrary to their promise and also contrary to the 18 NV,J WP No.268_2024 principle of “Legal Expectation” as held in catena of Judgments and as stated supra. 34. In Ram Pravesh Singh and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2 supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as under: 15. What is legitimate expectation? Obviously, it is not a legal right. It is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy, that may ordinarily flow from a promise or established practice. The term 'established practice' refers to a regular, consistent predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. The expectation should be legitimate, that is, reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be a legitimate expectation. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as such. It is a concept fashioned by courts, for judicial review of administrative action. It is procedural in character based on the requirement of a higher degree of fairness in administrative action, as a consequence of the promise made, or practice established. In short, a person can be said to have a 'legitimate expectation' of a particular treatment, if any representation or promise is made by an authority, either expressly or impliedly, or if the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation in the normal course. As a ground for relief, the efficacy of the doctrine is rather weak as its slot is just above 'fairness in action' but far below 'promissory estoppel'. It may only entitle an expectant : (a) to an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed; or (b) to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In appropriate cases, courts may grant a direction requiring the Authority to follow the promised procedure or established practice. A legitimate expectation, even when made out, does not always entitle the expectant to a relief. Public interest, change in policy, conduct of the expectant or any other valid or bonafide reason given by the decision- maker, may be sufficient to negative the 'legitimate expectation'. The doctrine of legitimate expectation based on established practice (as contrasted from legitimate expectation based on a promise), can be invoked only by someone who 19 NV,J WP No.268_2024 has dealings or transactions or negotiations with an authority, on which such established practice has a bearing, or by someone who has a recognized legal relationship with the authority. 35. The other submission of learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents that the once the decision was finalized by the Ministry of youth affairs and sports it became final and it cannot be interfered is contrary to the basic principles of the judicial review. The other submission of the learned counsel for the Respondents is that the petitioner has no locus, since she did not attribute any malafides either against the selection committee or against the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs, certainly without mudslinging or attributing malafides, the petition can be maintainable, if it is argued that it is against law and contrary to the settled principles of law. In case in hand also questioned selection process on the ground of contrary to law. 36. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the Respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable is not valid and untenable, for the reason the petitioner herein is an applicant and she is the highest scorer among all the applicants more particularly than the Respondent Nos.15 and 16 and also explained herself being a disciplined sports spirited person, she did not choose for any mudslinging and to attribute any malafide on part of any selection committee or others. But, canvassed the entire selection process is 20 NV,J WP No.268_2024 contrary to the terms of the scheme and in violation of National sports code. Therefore, the writ petition is duly maintainable. 37. On the above analysis, it is observed that the selection committee proceeded as per its discretionary in selection of a particular discipline for the selection of recipients for award certainly contrary to the scheme and also the promise made by the Respondents while inviting applications for awarding the Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award. The selection of particular discipline by way of discretion of the committee is implanting something which is not written in the scheme such an action is contrary to the aims and objects of the scheme as well as the wisdom of the creatures of the scheme. Therefore, the petitioner herein is made out a case warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the candidature of the petitioner is liable to be considered for Major Dhayan Chand Khel Ratna Award for the year 2023 along with Respondent Nos.15 and 16, since there is no hard and fast rule that in a year only one medal to an individual sport or team. There are incidents this Award was conferred more than one in a year. 38. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as extracted above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner is liable to be considered. 39. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Respondent No.1 herein either to frame guidelines or Rules for 21 NV,J WP No.268_2024 the selection process by the Selection Committee and for selection of eligible and talented renowned players for the highest honour / Award in the field of Sports i.e Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award, 2023, without any ambiguity and also for strict adherence towards the Regulations or Rules, instead of giving much scope for discretion to the Selection Committee. 40. However, the year of 2024 is also ended. At this juncture, quashment of selection in the year 2023 may not be appropriate. Further, the Respondents are at liberty to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the subject Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award for the year 2023 or 2024 along with already declared selectees for the year 2023 & 2024 without insisting any application afresh from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. 41. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 10th January, 2025 Knr 22 NV,J WP No.268_2024 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.268 of 2024 10th January, 2025 knr