SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association seeking permission for government employee and international sportsperson Bilquis Mir to serve as Chief Coach of the Indian national kayaking and canoeing team and undertake an international assignment in Hungary, holding that a sports federation cannot compel the government to spare the services of its employee without statutory backing.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani held that Mir, being a permanent government employee, had no enforceable right to seek a No Objection Certificate, relieving order or permission for foreign travel merely because she had been appointed by the national sports federation for international assignments. The court consequently dismissed WP(C) No. 987/2026, vacated the interim order that had temporarily permitted her assignments and closed a related contempt petition.
The judgment, reserved on August 4 and pronounced on August 11, followed a challenge by the Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association to the government’s refusal to relieve Mir for sporting assignments.
Mir had been appointed by the Association as Chief Coach of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team for the preparatory programme leading to the 2026 Asian Games, for the period from February 15 to September 30, 2026. The Association had first written to the Director General, Youth Services and Sports, J&K, on February 3 seeking her release to join the national coaching camp. Reminders followed on March 1 and April 2, but no decision was taken at the time.
The Association also said Mir had been invited to officiate as Chief Finish Line Judge at the 2026 ICF Canoe Sprint World Cup in Szeged, Hungary, scheduled from May 8 to 10.
The dispute reached the High Court after the government did not initially act on the Association’s requests. On May 6, 2026, a Single Judge passed an interim order directing the authorities to grant Mir provisional permission to discharge her duties as Chief Coach of the Indian national team for the Asian Games and travel to Hungary for the World Cup assignment. The permission, however, was expressly made subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and at her own risk and cost.
The Union Territory administration challenged that interim order through LPA No. 173/2026. When the appeal came before the Division Bench, the parties agreed that the writ petition itself could be finally decided. The court accordingly took up the writ petition along with the appeal.
Government cited inquiry, vigilance clearance
The government opposed the plea primarily on the ground that Mir was a government employee governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1971, applicable service rules and government instructions concerning foreign travel, station leave and outside engagements.
The government argued that her appointment by the Association as Chief Coach or Technical Official did not create an enforceable right to a relieving order or No Objection Certificate. It also told the court that Mir was facing a departmental inquiry initiated by an order dated July 31, 2025, concerning unauthorised foreign visits and other service-related issues.
According to the government, her proposed foreign travel had been examined under the Finance Department circular dated February 21, 2019, General Administration Department circular dated February 13, 2021, the Conduct Rules and the applicable vigilance-clearance procedure.
The government subsequently issued Government Order No. 25-JK(YSS) of 2026 on June 19, formally declining permission for the proposed foreign visits. The administration cited the pending inquiry, non-submission of prescribed documents and the absence of vigilance clearance.
The government further alleged that Mir had undertaken foreign visits in 2024 despite permission having been declined for failure to complete the prescribed procedure. A show-cause notice and Fact Finding Committee had subsequently been initiated, the court recorded.
Court: Federation cannot compel government to spare employee
The Division Bench framed the central question as whether a government employee could claim, as a matter of right, permission to undertake assignments entrusted by the national sports federation and travel abroad for that purpose.
The court answered the question against the Association.
“Merely because respondent No.3 has been nominated by the petitioner-Association for the aforesaid assignments does not, by itself, confer upon her an enforceable legal right,” the Bench held, adding that matters concerning a government employee’s release and foreign travel fall within the administrative domain of the employer.
The court said the arrangement under which Mir’s services could be made available to the Association was effectively one of deputation. Since she remained a permanent UT government employee, the J&K administration was her employer and the Association could not claim a superior position to that of a borrowing organisation.
“It is difficult to comprehend that a borrowing department can compel the employer to spare the services of its employee,” the court observed, while acknowledging Mir’s contribution to kayaking and canoeing.
The Bench added that her sporting achievements could not permit her to disregard the discipline applicable to government service.
Court flags absence of national policy for sports assignments
At the same time, the judgment raised a broader policy issue concerning government employees who are outstanding sportspersons or coaches and are selected for national and international sporting assignments.
The court noted that there was no mechanism put in place by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports or the Sports Authority of India laying down enforceable guidelines for the Central Government, states and Union Territories on lending the services of their employees for sporting activities.
The court said national sports federations could not, in the absence of such a mechanism, dictate terms to governments to necessarily spare their employees.
But the Bench also said it was “high time” that the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, along with the Sports Authority of India, devised a policy to address such cases.
The court suggested a framework that could provide enforceable rules for deputation of outstanding sportspersons employed by the Centre, states, UTs or public sector undertakings to recognised National Sports Federations.
Such a framework, it said, would help ensure that the services of outstanding sportspersons are made available to federations in time to facilitate their participation in national and international events.
Court rejects discrimination plea
The Association had also argued that Mir was being treated differently from another coach, Ms Joshua Yohannan, who, according to the petition, had been relieved by the competent authority to participate in an international sporting event.
The Bench rejected the argument, holding that Article 14 of the Constitution embodies a positive concept of equality and that a discrimination claim requires the persons compared to be similarly situated in all material particulars.
The government had specifically cited the pending departmental inquiry against Mir, vigilance-clearance issues and alleged non-compliance with the Conduct Rules as circumstances distinguishing her case from Yohannan’s.
“In the absence of any material demonstrating parity of circumstances, no case of hostile discrimination is made out,” the court held.
Court, however, criticises delay in government decision
The judgment was not entirely favourable to the administration. The Bench found substance in the Association’s grievance that its request had remained unattended for a considerable period.
It observed that administrative authorities should deal with such requests “with reasonable promptitude”, particularly when they concern national and international sporting events.
The court said delay could prejudice both the employee and the larger national interest. However, once the competent authority had ultimately taken a reasoned decision through the June 19 government order, the court held that the validity of that decision had to be examined on its own merits.
The Bench further held that foreign travel by a government employee was “not a vested or indefeasible right” and remained subject to service rules, executive instructions, administrative exigencies, vigilance clearance and, where necessary, pending disciplinary proceedings.
The court consequently found no enforceable legal right warranting a writ of mandamus directing the government to permit Mir to undertake the assignments.
It dismissed the writ petition, held that the competent authority was justified in considering the request in light of the Conduct Rules, government instructions, pending departmental proceedings and lack of requisite clearances, and found no ground to interfere with the government’s decision.
The May 6 interim order was vacated and there was no order as to costs.
With the writ petition dismissed and the interim order vacated, the Division Bench held that LPA No. 173/2026 had become infructuous and disposed of it.
The contempt petition filed by Bilquis Mir, CCP(S) No. 215/2026, was also closed. The court held that the May 6 interim direction had been an interlocutory arrangement subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and, following dismissal of the petition, had merged with the final order and stood vacated.
The Association was represented by Senior Advocate Najmi Waziri with Advocate Arbaaz Khan, while the UT administration was represented by Government Advocate Faheem Nisar Shah. Advocate Khawaja Siddiqui appeared for respondent No. 2 in the LPA.
