Also Read - Madras High Court Circular on Singing Vande Mataram Draws Concern Over Exclusion of Tamil Thai Vaazhthu

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.

Also Read - Madras High Court Slams Tamil Nadu Government for Denying BJP National Flag Rally Permit

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.

Also Read - Conviction Upheld but Sentence Set Aside Where Juvenile Tried as Adult: Supreme Court

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.

Also Read - US Court Dismisses Criminal Case Against Gautam Adani Following Justice Department's Decision to Drop Prosecution

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.

Also Read - Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Third Petition on Regulation of Religious Education

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.

Also Read - Advocates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within 2 Years Of Provisional Enrolment Cannot Continue To Practise: Allahabad High Court

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.