The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a National Sports Federation cannot claim a legal right to requisition the services of a government employee or compel the government to spare such employees for sporting assignments in the absence of a statutory provision creating such an obligation.
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association against the Union Territory authorities concerning the services of a government employee appointed as Chief Coach of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team for the preparatory programme leading to the Asian Games, 2026.
The Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association, a National Sports Federation, appointed the employee as Chief Coach citing her merit, experience and expertise. It subsequently requested the Director General, Youth Services and Sports, Jammu and Kashmir, to relieve her so that she could join the national coaching camp.
The Association also stated that the employee had been invited to officiate as Chief Finish Line Judge at the 2026 ICF Canoe Sprint World Cup in Hungary. It alleged that failure to relieve her was affecting the preparation of the Indian team and relied upon the case of another coach who had allegedly been relieved for a similar international assignment.
The government opposed the petition, contending that the employee continued to be a government employee governed by applicable Conduct Rules, service rules and government instructions regulating foreign travel and outside engagements.
The government further pointed out that a departmental inquiry concerning unauthorised foreign visits and other service-related issues was pending and requisite vigilance clearance had not been obtained.
The Association alleged that the denial of permission was arbitrary and discriminatory, while the respondents maintained that foreign travel and deputation were subject to applicable rules and administrative discretion and did not constitute vested rights.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice (Acting) Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani observed that merely because the employee had been nominated by the petitioner-association for the aforesaid assignments did not, by itself, confer upon her an enforceable legal right to claim a direction from the court for issuance of a No Objection Certificate, relieving order or permission to travel abroad.
The Division Bench held that the employee, being a permanent government employee, remained subject to the service rules governing her employment. Her appointment by the Sports Federation did not override those conditions or create an enforceable right to be relieved from government service.
The court treated the proposed arrangement essentially as one of deputation and observed that the Sports Federation, as a borrowing organisation, could not compel the lending government to spare the services of its employee.
The court observed that it is difficult to comprehend that a borrowing department can compel the employer to spare the services of its employee for utilisation thereof in sporting activities of national or international repute.
The court acknowledged the employee's contribution to sports but also took note of the record showing instances of foreign travel without prior permission and the pending departmental proceedings. It held that professional achievements could not override the discipline applicable to a government servant.
The Bench further noted the absence of an enforceable framework framed by the Ministry of Sports and the Sports Authority of India governing the lending of services of government employees to National Sports Federations. In such circumstances, the Federation could not dictate terms to the government to necessarily spare its employee.
On the question of mandamus, the court held that such a writ can be issued only for enforcement of a legal, statutory or public duty where a corresponding legal right exists.
The matter was considered along with an intra-Court appeal against an interim order directing provisional permission for the assignments and a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with that order.