LPA 760/2026 Page 1 of 25

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment Reserved on: 22.09.2026

% Judgment Delivered on: 24.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010452722026

+ LPA 760/2026, CM APPL. 65145/2026 & CM APPL. 65146/2026

VAASVI KHAITAN (MINOR) THR HER FATHER

MR VEDANT KHAITAN .....Appellant

Versus

AD-HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF

EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case

For the Appellant : Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Kapil Modi, Mr. Ritwik

Saha, Mr. Shiv Verma, Mr. Maulik

Khurana & Mr. Shorya Goel,

Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Ms. Niyati

Kohli, Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Mr.

Pinank Mehra & Ms. Isha Kakkar,

Advocates. for R-1&2.

Mr. Ruchir Mishra with Mr. Sanjiv

Kumar Saxena, Mr. Mukesh Kumar

Tiwari, Ms. Reba Jena Mishra, Ms.

Poonam Shukla, Advocates & Ms.

Rupali Singh, GP. for R-4.

Mr. Kartik Yadav, Ms. Sumedha

Chadha, Mr. Duvva Pawan Kumar,

Mr. Sai Krishna Kumar & Ms.

Shradha Gupta, Advocates for R-5.

Ms. Manini Brar with Mr. O.P. Harsh

Singh Munday & Mr. Siddhant

Chhabra, Advocates for R-6.

LPA 760/2026 Page 2 of 25

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

1.The present Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant challenging

the judgment dated 17.09.2026 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 12760/2026 (“Writ Petition”) filed by the

Appellant.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2.Respondent No. 1, theAd HocCommittee has been entrusted with the

governance of the Equestrian Federation of India (“EFI”), the National

Federation responsible for conducting national-level selections for

participation in international equestrian events, including Show Jumping at

the Youth Olympic Games, Dakar, Senegal, 2026 (“YOG 2026”).

Respondent No. 2 is the Show Jumping Selection Committee (“Selection

Committee”) constituted for selection of a rider to represent India at YOG

2026

3.On 08.05.2026, an information brochure was issued in respect of

YOG 2026. The brochure stipulated that the selection process would

commence with the notification of eligibility criteria by the Fédération

Équestre Internationale (“FEI”), and that entries from National Olympic

Committees were required to be received by 25.09.2026. Thereafter, the FEI

issued eligibility criteria for Show Jumping, requiring a rider to incur not

more than eight penalties in any one of the specified competitions to be

LPA 760/2026 Page 3 of 25

issued a Certificate of Capability (“COC”), which constituted a precondition

for participation in the national-level selection trials.

4.On 08.11.2025 and 10.11.2025, the Youth Olympics qualifying

rounds, namely Competition 3, Category A of the FEI Jumping World

Challenge, were conducted at Bengaluru, Karnataka, and Meerut, Uttar

Pradesh, respectively, on courses laid out in accordance with the FEI

Regulations, 2026 (“Regulations”).

5.On 28.12.2025, the then Acting President of EFI circulated EFI

Selection Criteria for YOG 2026 (“Selection Criteria”), as approved by the

Executive Committee of EFI.

6.Between 14.12.2025 and 02.05.2026, the Appellant obtained eight

qualifying scores in CSI1* competitions in Europe. On 21.04.2026, FEI

published the YOG 2026 timeline, which,inter alia, prescribed 15.05.2026

as the deadline for COC, 24.08.2026 as the opening of Sport Entries, and

25.09.2026 as the deadline for definite entries.

7.On 08.05.2026, EFI uploaded on its website the Selection Criteria.

Clause 5 thereof provided that, where more than one athlete obtained a valid

COC within the FEI deadline, EFI would assess the athletes with reference

to the technical difficulty and level of competitions completed, consistency

of international performance, recency of results relative to YOG 2026,

stability of the horse-rider combination, and championship readiness.

8.On 08.05.2026, the father of the Appellant forwarded to EFI the

Appellant’s official FEI record for the period from 27.04.2023 to

02.05.2026, containing the aforesaid eight qualifying scores in CSI1*

LPA 760/2026 Page 4 of 25

competitions in Europe. On 08.05.2026, an identical selection criteria, as the

Selection Criteria was uploaded on the website of EFI.

9.EFIvideemail dated 12.05.2026, addressed to FEI, sought inclusion

of the Appellant to represent India in YOG 2026 and confirmation of the

Appellant’s eligibility, as prescribed by FEI, for issuance of the COC, on the

basis the Appellant’s performances at FEI competitions at Lier, Opglabbeek

and Gent.

10.At its meeting held on 13.05.2026, the Selection Committee

considered the candidatures of the Appellant and Mr. Neil Kendall based on

their results for 2025–2026. The Selection Committee selected the Appellant

to represent India at YOG 2026 and designated Mr. Neil Kendall as the

reserve rider. It also approved the COCs of all seven riders proposed by EFI

based on the results achieved at the FEI Jumping World Challenge held at

Bengaluru on 08.11.2025 and results obtained up to May 2026.

11.Thereafter, on 19.05.2026, EFI, acting through its Chief Technical

Advisor, affirmed the Appellant’s selection as India’s representative for

YOG 2026 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and directed

that the Appellant’s entry, together with the COC, be forwarded to FEI.

12.By email dated 19.05.2026, EFI informed FEI that the Appellant had

been selected to represent India at YOG 2026. On 20.05.2026, FEI

confirmed that seven Indian riders, including the Appellant, had obtained

valid COCs for YOG 2026.

LPA 760/2026 Page 5 of 25

13.By email dated 10.06.2026 (“Email”), EFI informed the seven riders

holding valid COCs that they had been included in the long list of riders

under consideration for YOG 2026 and were required to submit their latest

competition results and performance records by 25.07.2026. The Email

further stated that the final selection would be based on an objective

assessment of recent performances, consistency of results, competitiveness

at CSI1*/CSI2* events, and overall merit.

14.By email dated 10.07.2026 (“Clarification Email”), EFI clarified the

Selection Criteria by stating that, for the purposes of MER and performance

consistency, only results obtained at CSI1*/CSI2* events conducted at a

minimum height of 130 cm would be considered.

15.Thereafter, by email dated 10.06.2026, EFI informed the seven riders

holding valid COCs that the deadline for submission of results had been

extended to 25.07.2026. EFI further stated that the Selection Committee

would review all eligible performances, that the riders had been included in

the list of candidates under consideration to represent India at YOG 2026,

and that they were required to submit their latest competition results and

performance records by 25.07.2026. The email further provided that the

final selection would be based on an objective assessment of recent

performances, consistency of results, competitiveness at events, and overall

merit.

16.By communication dated 10.06.2026, the Appellant’s father

responded to the aforesaid email and informed EFI that the Appellant’s

scores from the requisite competitions would be submitted.

LPA 760/2026 Page 6 of 25

17.On 15.06.2026, the Selection Committee selected the Indian show

jumping team for the Asian Games 2026 in accordance with the Selection

Criteria, and EFI accepted and acted upon that selection.

18.The Appellant thereafter obtained two additional qualifying scores in

France on 21.07.2026 and 22.07.2026. The Appellant’s father forwarded

those results to EFI on 26.07.2026 and 03.08.2026, respectively.

19.On 06.08.2026, the Selection Committee concluded the process for

selecting one rider and one reserve rider to represent India at YOG 2026

(“Selection Decision-I”). Respondent No. 5 was ranked first and selected to

represent India, the Appellant was ranked second and designated as the

reserve rider, and Respondent No. 6 was ranked third. Selection Decision-I

was published on EFI’s website on 10.08.2026.

20.The Appellant submitted a representation dated 13.08.2026

challenging Selection Decision-I on the ground that the Selection Committee

had failed to consider her qualifying score of 1.35 cm achieved at the CSI1*

Grand Prix at Opglabbeek on 02.05.2026.

21.Pursuant to the Appellant’s representation dated 13.08.2026, EFI

issued a notice on 16.08.2026 (“Review Notice”) proposing that the

Selection Committee reconsider Selection Decision-I.

22.On 17.08.2026, the Appellant also instituted proceedings before this

Court, bearing Diary No. 343736/2026, challenging Selection Decision-I as

published on 10.08.2026. Those proceedings were not pursued after the

Appellant became aware of the Review Notice, by which EFI suspended

LPA 760/2026 Page 7 of 25

Selection Decision-I and directed the Selection Committee to reconvene and

reconsider the selection.

23.On 18.08.2026, this Court passed an order in W.P.(C) 11935/2026,

titledShubh Chowdhari through his Father v. Equestrian Federation of

India & Ors., directing EFI to decide the representation dated 13.08.2026

challenging Selection Decision-I.

24.On 24.08.2026, the Selection Committee reviewed Selection

Decision-I. In the minutes of its meeting dated 24.08.2026 (“Impugned

Minutes”), the Selection Committee assessed the results of the eligible

riders for the period from 08.05.2026 to 25.07.2026 and also treated the

Appellant’s result dated 01.05.2026 as her COC result. On the basis of that

assessment, Respondent No. 5 was ranked first, Respondent No. 6 second,

and the Appellant third (“Selection Decision-II”).

25.By resolution dated 27.08.2026 (“Impugned Resolution”), EFI

accepted the recommendations recorded by the Selection Committee in the

Impugned Minutes. Consequently, Respondent No. 5 was recommended to

represent India at YOG 2026, Respondent No. 6 was designated Reserve

Rider 1, and the Appellant was designated Reserve Rider 2.

26.Aggrieved by the Impugned Minutes and the Impugned Resolution,

the Appellant instituted the Writ Petition,inter alia, challenging the

adoption of the period from 08.05.2026 to 25.07.2026 as the

qualifying/selection window. The Appellant contended that this amounted to

a retrospective alteration of the rules after the selection process had

commenced and resulted in the exclusion of seven qualifying scores

LPA 760/2026 Page 8 of 25

obtained before 08.05.2026. The Appellant further sought a recalculation of

the order of merit after taking into account all qualifying scores obtained by

each eligible rider during the period from 08.11.2025 to 25.07.2026.

27.By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge disposed of the

Writ Petition, holding that the alleged retrospective alteration of the

qualifying/selection window from 08.11.2025 to 08.05.2026 was not borne

out by the material on record and declining to interfere with Selection

Decision-II.

28.Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the Appellant preferred the

present Appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

29.Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, made

the following submissions:

29.1.Neither the Selection Criteria nor the version uploaded on

08.05.2026 prescribed 08.05.2026 as the opening date, or

stipulated that results obtained prior thereto would be considered

solely for the purpose of obtaining the COC and excluded from

the order of merit. The only opening date specified in the

Selection Criteria is 01.04.2025, since the COC was required to

be obtained during the period from 01.04.2025 to 15.05.2026.

29.2.Clause 5 of the Selection Criteria requires an assessment of five

qualitative factors, namely, the technical difficulty and level of

competition, consistency of international performance, recency of

results, stability of the horse-rider combination, and championship

LPA 760/2026 Page 9 of 25

readiness. While the reference to “recency of results” may permit

the Selection Committee to assign appropriate weight to a

particular result, it cannot justify the retrospective exclusion of all

results obtained before the Selection Criteria were uploaded on

EFI’s website.

29.3.Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 fixed the period from 08.05.2026 to

25.07.2026 for the first time in the Impugned Minutes. The

Impugned Minutes themselves record that the window “should be

fixed” from 08.05.2026 to 25.07.2026 because the Selection

Criteria had been published on 08.05.2026.

29.4.The learned Single Judge held that no document identified

08.11.2025 as the opening date for consideration of the results.

Equally, however, no document identified 08.05.2026 as such

opening date. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had themselves stated that

the Selection Criteria did not prescribe an opening date.

Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge upheld 08.05.2026 as the

opening date for consideration of the results.

29.5.EFI had designated Competition 3, Category A, held at Bengaluru

on 08.11.2025 and Meerut on 10.11.2025, as the YOG Qualifying

Competition. The Impugned Judgment records that 31.12.2025

was the deadline for National Federations/National Olympic

Committees to secure eligibility to participate in YOG 2026, and

that India secured its quota through Mr. Neil Kendall’s zero-

penalty round at Bengaluru on 08.11.2025. A qualifying/selection

LPA 760/2026 Page 10 of 25

window purportedly commencing on 08.05.2026 could not

encompass a mandatory stage whose deadline had expired on

31.12.2025, at which India secured its quota and six of the seven

riders obtained the COCs that qualified them for inclusion in the

order of merit.

29.6.Annexure IV to Selection Decision-I tabulated the results

obtained on 08.11.2025 and 10.11.2025 by six of the seven riders

considered for final selection, without stating that those results

were considered solely for the purpose of obtaining the COC.

29.7.The finding in the Impugned Judgment that Annexure IV to

Selection Decision-I recorded the recent results obtained by

eligible athletes between 08.05.2026 and 25.07.2026, together

with one score forming the basis of each athlete’s COC, is

contrary to Annexure IV itself. Annexure IV does not contain the

parenthetical expression “between period 08.05.2026 to

25.07.2026” referred to in the Impugned Judgment.

29.8.Respondent No. 1 had itself acted upon the Appellant’s results

obtained prior to 08.05.2026. The Minutes dated 13.05.2026

record that the results of the Appellant and Mr. Neil Kendall

“between 2025-2026” were reviewed, whereupon the Appellant

was selected to represent India at YOG 2026.

29.9.The Minutes dated 13.05.2026 further record that all seven riders

proposed by EFI had obtained the requisite results on the basis of

the FEI Jumping World Challenge held at Bengaluru on

LPA 760/2026 Page 11 of 25

08.11.2025 and results obtained up to May 2026. On 19.05.2026,

EFI’s Chief Technical Advisor affirmed the Appellant’s selection

“based on the Selection Criteria laid out for the same”, and EFI

informed FEI that the Appellant “has been finally selected”.

These documents demonstrate the manner in which Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 understood and applied the Selection Criteria. They

also submitted before the learned Single Judge that the

comparison undertaken on 13.05.2026 was confined to results

available up to 02.05.2026. It follows that the Selection

Committee had compared results obtained prior to 08.05.2026.

29.10.The Minutes dated 13.05.2026 and the communications dated

19.05.2026 were not disclosed to the Appellant when Selection

Decision-I was published. They were subsequently placed before

the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition after counsel for the

Appellant obtained them from sources other than Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2. The communications exchanged in May 2026 were

thereafter filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with their reply

dated 14.09.2026 in the Writ Petition.

29.11.The contention that the selection recorded on 13.05.2026 arose

from an erroneous understanding of the final-entry deadline does

not alter the contents of the Minutes or the communications dated

19.05.2026. Nor is there any minute, resolution, notification,

email, or other communication recording the recall or cancellation

of that selection or setting out reasons for reopening the process.

LPA 760/2026 Page 12 of 25

29.12.Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also adopted inconsistent standards in

relation to expressions of interest. Mr. Jaiveer Varma’s request

was declined on the grounds that he had not communicated his

intention within the stipulated period and did not possess a COC.

Conversely, the selection dated 13.05.2026 was sought to be

displaced on the ground that only the Appellant and Mr. Neil

Kendall had expressed their intention by that date. Respondent

No. 1 admitted the remaining five riders into the process on

10.06.2026, included their results dated 08.11.2025 and

13.05.2026 in Annexure IV to Selection Decision-I, and thereafter

relied upon their earlier absence to displace the Appellant’s

selection dated 13.05.2026.

29.13.Clause 1 of Article 015 of the EFI Statute requires the

proceedings of the Selection Committee to be recorded in

minutes, signed, and forwarded to EFI’s Executive Committee for

ratification. If the selection recorded on 13.05.2026 had been

recalled, that decision was likewise required to be formally

recorded. The Appellant could not have acquiesced in the

reopening of the process when the relevant documents had not

been disclosed to her.

29.14.The communication dated 10.06.2026, informing the seven COC

holders of their inclusion in the long list, likewise did not

prescribe 08.05.2026 as the opening date. It required the riders to

submit their latest competition results and performance records by

25.07.2026. Thus, while the communication prescribed a closing

LPA 760/2026 Page 13 of 25

date, it neither excluded results obtained prior to 08.05.2026 nor

indicated that such results would be disregarded. All ten

qualifying scores obtained by the Appellant were available before

the conclusion of the selection process.

29.15.The finding in the Impugned Judgment that the Appellant had not

sought clarification regarding consideration of her earlier results

overlooks the correspondence exchanged between the Appellant

and EFI from 08.05.2026 to 06.08.2026. Respondent No. 1

possessed the complete record of her results for 2025 and 2026

and had informed the Appellant that the Selection Committee

would review all eligible performances. At no stage was the

Appellant informed that results obtained prior to 08.05.2026

would be excluded. The Appellant therefore had a legitimate

expectation that the qualifying scores already obtained by her and

placed before Respondent No. 1 would not subsequently be

disregarded by the retrospective fixation of an opening date.

29.16.Having found that no document identified any opening date, the

learned Single Judge was bound to conclude that none had been

prescribed, rather than infer one from the circumstances after the

selection process had concluded. Reliance was placed on the

decisions of the Supreme Court inTej Prakash Pathak v. High

Court of Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC 1, andK. Manjusree v. State of

Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512, in support of the proposition

that a recruitment/selection process commences with the

LPA 760/2026 Page 14 of 25

advertisement and that any subsequent alteration of the eligibility

criteria prevailing at its commencement is impermissible.

29.17.Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 relied upon Clause 3.2 of Article 15 of

the EFI Statute to contend that the Selection Criteria became

operative upon being uploaded on 08.05.2026. However, the same

requirements of approval, promulgation, and publication were not

applied to the extension of the closing date from 15.05.2026 to

25.07.2026. The material placed on record discloses no approval,

amendment, or publication extending that date. Respondent Nos.

1 and 2 cannot invoke the EFI Statute to exclude the Appellant’s

earlier results while disregarding its requirements for extending

the closing date.

29.18.If publication of the Selection Criteria were determinative under the

EFI Statute, the selection process would have remained open only

from 08.05.2026 to 15.05.2026. None of the results on the basis of

which Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were placed in the order of merit falls

within that period.

29.19.The relief sought by the Appellant does not require a fresh selection

exercise. The Appellant seeks only the deletion of the retrospectively

introduced opening date and a uniform recalculation in accordance

with the numerical-count method already adopted in the Impugned

Minutes. The results of all seven eligible riders are available and have

been verified on the FEI platform. No fresh competition or

assessment of additional material is required.

LPA 760/2026 Page 15 of 25

29.20.The relief sought by the Appellant is severable, since the opening date

specified in Paragraph Nos. 3(ii) and 5(iv) of the Impugned Minutes

may be set aside while retaining the methodology prescribed in

Paragraph No. 5(vi). The decision inAnush Agarwalla v. Ad-Hoc

Committee for Governance of Equestrian Federation of India &

Ors., Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5375-DB, is distinguishable. In

Anush Agarwalla(supra), the matter required further competition

and the movement of horses, whereas YOG 2026 involves borrowed

horses and entails neither requirement.

29.21.The final-entry deadline was therefore not an impediment to the relief

sought in the Writ Petition; rather, it warranted an expeditious limited

recalculation. Consideration of the earlier qualifying scores would not

prejudice the other riders, since Selection Decision-I itself took into

account results obtained by six riders on 08.11.2025 and 10.11.2025.

The Appellant seeks only the uniform consideration of results.

29.22.In the present case, the class of affected athletes is confined to the

seven riders included in the long list. Upon uniform application of

the numerical-count method, the Appellant has ten qualifying

scores, Respondent No. 5 has five, and Respondent No. 6 has four.

29.23.The sole reason stated in the Impugned Minutes for fixing

08.05.2026 as the opening date is that the Selection Criteria were

uploaded on that date. However, the Impugned Judgment did not

examine Paragraph Nos. 3(ii), 5(iv), and 5(vi) of the Impugned

Minutes, which respectively address the fixation of the relevant

LPA 760/2026 Page 16 of 25

period, the restriction governing re-tabulation, and the

consequential order of merit. Nor did it examine the statement of

Col. Jagat Singh (Retd.) that the date had been fixed

retrospectively, the Minutes dated 13.05.2026, or the

communications exchanged in May 2026 that were relevant to the

determination of the selection window.

29.24.The challenge founded on legitimate expectation arose from EFI’s

treatment of an amendment to the selection criteria for the Asian

Games 2026, where the amendment was applied prospectively

and earlier results were preserved. The Appellant therefore had a

legitimate expectation, reinforced by EFI’s past practice, that

results already obtained would not be retrospectively excluded.

The Impugned Minutes identify no provision or prior

communication authorising 08.05.2026 as the opening date. The

direction in the Impugned Judgment requiring EFI to prescribe

such a date in future itself recognises that the present Selection

Criteria did not clearly prescribe one. In the absence of any

provision permitting an opening date to be fixed after completion

of the relevant performances, 08.05.2026 could not

retrospectively be introduced to exclude the Appellant’s

qualifying scores.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF EFI AND THE SELECTION

COMMITTEE:

30.Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, learned Counsel for EFI and the Selection

Committee, made the following submissions:

LPA 760/2026 Page 17 of 25

30.1.The selection window did not commence on 08.11.2025, and no

published document inviting participation from eligible athletes

prescribed any such window. The performances recorded on

08.11.2025 were relevant solely for obtaining the COC and did not

mark the commencement of the final selection process for YOG

2026.

30.2.The Appellant’s reliance on the communication dated 28.12.2025

to contend that the selection window commenced on 08.11.2025 is

misplaced, as the said communication was a private

communication addressed solely to the Appellant’s father. It did

not constitute publication of the Selection Criteria or an invitation

to all eligible athletes to participate. The learned Single Judge

rightly held that publication on EFI’s website was mandated by the

EFI Statute. Accordingly, 08.05.2026 constituted the

commencement date of the selection window, being the date on

which the Selection Criteria were published and made available to

the public at large.

30.3.The deadline of 15.05.2026 specified in the Selection Criteria,

upon which the Appellant relies, pertained solely to the obtaining

of a valid COC. Respondent No. 1 initially proceeded on the

understanding that 20.05.2026 was the deadline for submission of

COCs to FEI. In fact, that date was the deadline for submitting the

list of eligible riders who had obtained a COC on or before

15.05.2026. FEI did not accept Respondent No. 1’s

communication naming the Appellant as the selected candidate as

LPA 760/2026 Page 18 of 25

constituting a final selection. By email dated 20.05.2026, FEI

merely confirmed receipt of valid COCs in respect of all seven

eligible riders.

30.4.The Appellant was never informed that she had been finally selected,

nor was any other candidate notified of any such selection. The

recommendation dated 13.05.2026 could not constitute a concluded

final selection when five other eligible COC holders had not been

considered.

30.5.The Impugned Judgment records that the selection dated 13.05.2026

was not relied upon as an independent basis for seeking the

Appellant’s selection. It was relied upon solely in support of the

contention that the selection window commenced on 08.11.2025,

namely, to demonstrate that results obtained prior to 08.05.2026 had

been considered.

30.6.The email dated 10.06.2026 was addressed to all seven candidates, and

the Appellant thereafter participated in the process without objection.

From 10.06.2026 until Selection Decision-I, the Appellant submitted

only scores obtained after 08.05.2026. Even when called upon to

furnish an Excel sheet, the Appellant provided only post-08.05.2026

scores, although the sheet itself did not specify 08.05.2026 as the

commencement date. All candidates thus proceeded on the basis that

the relevant window commenced on 08.05.2026 and concluded on

25.07.2026.

LPA 760/2026 Page 19 of 25

30.7.The review of Selection Decision-I was itself sought by the

candidates. The Appellant participated in that review and

submitted her representation dated 13.08.2026. The validity of the

decision rendered upon review, namely, the Impugned Minutes

and the Impugned Resolution, cannot be assailed merely because

the ultimate outcome was adverse to the Appellant.

30.8.Every cut-off date may adversely affect a candidate or alter the

pool of eligible or selected candidates. The relevant question is

whether the adoption of the date of publication of the Selection

Criteria as the cut-off date, consistently with the EFI Constitution,

was so arbitrary that no reasonable person could have adopted it.

That threshold is plainly not met in the present proceedings.

30.9.The rules governing the selection process were not altered after the

process had commenced. The rule asserted by the Appellant,

namely, that the selection window commenced on 08.11.2025,

never existed. The window commenced on 08.05.2026 and was

thereafter extended until 25.07.2026. The Selection Criteria were

not challenged in the Writ Petition and cannot be challenged at this

stage.

30.10.The Appellant cannot claim an automatic entitlement to selection

over other meritorious candidates who, despite being eligible, were

not duly considered in the truncated and erroneous process

conducted on 13.05.2026. The purpose of the subsequent process

was not to facilitate the selection of one candidate on a technical

LPA 760/2026 Page 20 of 25

ground, but to ensure that the candidate chosen to represent the

country was determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria

and based on comparative merit.

30.11.In view of the foregoing, the present Appeal merits dismissal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

31.We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the Parties

and perused the material placed on record.

32.The principal grievance raised by the Appellant in the present Appeal

is that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 retrospectively altered the

qualifying/selection window from 08.11.2025–25.07.2026, which, according

to the Appellant, had been adopted and applied in Selection Decision-I, to

08.05.2026–25.07.2026.

33.The Appellant submitted that 08.11.2025 stood established as the

opening date of the selection window by Annexure IV to Selection

Decision-I. It is further contended by the Appellant that EFI had designated

Competition 3, Category A, held at Bengaluru on 08.11.2025 and at Meerut

on 10.11.2025, as the YOG Qualifying Competitions. Annexure IV to

Selection Decision-I evaluated the results obtained on 08.11.2025 and

10.11.2025 by six of the seven riders considered for final selection, without

stating that those results were considered solely for the purpose of obtaining

the COC.

34.EFI and the Selection Committee, on the other hand, contend that

08.11.2025 was never prescribed or adopted as the opening date for

LPA 760/2026 Page 21 of 25

consideration of the results, and that the results dated 08.11.2025 and

10.11.2025 appearing in Annexure IV to Selection Decision-I were

considered solely for the purpose of the COC. Accordingly, the Selection

Criteria were published on EFI’s website on 08.05.2026 and, consequently,

the results obtained between 08.05.2026 and 25.07.2026, together with the

result forming the basis of the COC, were considered for preparation of the

order of merit.

35.The material placed on record discloses that on 01.08.2025, EFI

designated Competition 3, Category A, of the FEI Jumping World Challenge,

proposed to be held at Bengaluru on 08.11.2025 and at Meerut on 10.11.2025,

as the YOG Qualifying Competition. FEI thereafter confirmed that those

competitions would qualify as a “Youth Olympic Games Selected Event”.

36.The Minutes dated 13.05.2026 further disclose that the Selection

Committee considered the candidature of the Appellant and Mr. Neil Kendall

based on their results for 2025–2026 and selected the Appellant to represent

India at YOG 2026. The Minutes also addressed the COCs of all seven riders

proposed by EFI based on the results obtained at the FEI Jumping World

Challenge held at Bengaluru on 08.11.2025 and results obtained up to May

2026. EFI thereafter communicated the Appellant’s selection to FEI on

19.05.2026.

37.On 20.05.2026, FEI confirmed that all seven riders had obtained valid

COCs. Thereafter, by communication dated 10.06.2026, EFI informed all

seven riders that they had been included in the list of riders under consideration

for final selection and called upon them to submit their latest competition

LPA 760/2026 Page 22 of 25

results and performance records by 25.07.2026. The final selection was

thereafter conducted among all seven eligible riders.

38.The Appellant’s submission that 08.05.2026 was not expressly

prescribed as the opening date does not advance her case. The absence of an

expressly prescribed opening date cannot, by itself, establish that the period

from 08.11.2025 to 25.07.2026 constituted the selection window, as contended

by the Appellant.

39.The Selection Criteria were uploaded on EFI’s website on 08.05.2026.

Thereafter, on 20.05.2026 FEI confirmed that seven Indian riders had

obtained valid COCs for YOG 2026. By communication dated 10.06.2026,

EFI informed those seven riders that they had been included in the long list

for YOG 2026. The communication further stated that final selection would

be based on an objective assessment of recent performances, consistency of

results, competitiveness at events, and overall merit, and required the riders

to submit their latest competition results and performance records by

25.07.2026.

40.The communication dated 10.06.2026 brought all seven eligible riders

within a common process for final selection. The Appellant participated in

that process and obtained two further qualifying scores on 21.07.2026 and

22.07.2026, which were forwarded to EFI. The Selection Committee

thereafter conducted the selection on 06.08.2026 and ranked Respondent

No. 5 first, the Appellant second, and Respondent No. 6 third.

41.There is no dispute that the Minutes dated 13.05.2026 record that the

results of the Appellant and Mr. Neil Kendall “between 2025-2026” were

LPA 760/2026 Page 23 of 25

reviewed and that the Appellant was selected to represent India at YOG

2026. Those Minutes must, however, be considered in the context of the

process undertaken at that stage. The material placed on record makes it

evident that only the Appellant and Mr. Neil Kendall were included in the

comparative assessment conducted on 13.05.2026. Following FEI’s

confirmation on 20.05.2026 that all seven riders had obtained valid COCs,

EFI bycommunication dated 10.06.2026 expressly informed all eligible

riders, including the Appellant, that they had been included in the long list

and that final selection would be undertaken on the basis of the parameters

specified therein.

42.The Appellant thereafter participated in that process and submitted

her subsequent results for consideration. Accordingly, irrespective of the

position recorded on 13.05.2026, the process in which the Appellant

subsequently participated involved a comparative assessment of all seven

eligible riders for final selection.

43.The selection of the Appellant recorded in the Minutes dated

13.05.2026 cannot, therefore, be regarded as having concluded the selection

process for YOG 2026.

44.The Appellant further contended that results obtained prior to

08.05.2026 were not treated consistently, inasmuch as the Impugned

Minutes fixed 08.05.2026 as the opening date while also considering the

Appellant’s result dated 01.05.2026 for preparation of the order of merit.

The inconsistency identified by the Appellant cannot, in the absence of any

stipulation in the Selection Criteria or any other material on record, justify

LPA 760/2026 Page 24 of 25

acceptance of 08.11.2025 as the opening date. The material placed on

record, however, discloses no stipulation prescribing 08.11.2025 as the

opening date. The learned Single Judge rightly held that treating 08.05.2026

as the commencement date for consideration of recent results in Selection

Decision-II did not amount to a retrospective alteration of the Selection

Criteria.

45.The record shows that the Selection Criteria were uploaded on EFI’s

website on 08.05.2026, that the riders were thereafter called upon to submit

their latest results by 25.07.2026, and that this period was adopted for the

comparative assessment. The learned Single Judge also took note of the

uncertainty occasioned by the way the selection process unfolded in the

present case. The observations in the Impugned Judgment emphasising the

need for greater clarity, transparency, and consistency in future selection

processes conducted by EFI were absolutely necessary in the facts of the

present case. We find ourselves in agreement with the learned Single Judge

and reiterate the same.

46.An athlete representing the country at an international sporting event

requires not only physical ability, but also mental and emotional fortitude. It

is therefore imperative that the selection process does not occasion

avoidable uncertainty for participating athletes, as disputes arising from

ambiguity may themselves impede their preparation for the event. EFI must

accordingly ensure that the selection criteria and timelines are framed,

communicated, and implemented with sufficient clarity to obviate disputes

of this nature.

LPA 760/2026 Page 25 of 25

47.The lack of clarity in the present selection process does not, however,

by itself, establish the Appellant’s case. The Appellant seeks redrawing the

order of merit by treating 08.11.2025 as the opening date for consideration

of the results. In the absence of material establishing that date as the

commencement of the relevant period, the relief sought cannot be granted.

48.In these circumstances, we find no good ground to interfere with the

conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with

the Impugned Minutes, the Impugned Resolution, and, consequently,

Selection Decision-II.

49.Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed. All pending

applications, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to

costs.

TEJAS KARIA, J

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/Hk