Ahmedabad swimming coaches working on contract have been asked to submit fitness certificates from MBBS doctors every six months, triggering allegations that municipal rules treat contract and permanent employees differently. The reported change affects around 17 contract coaches in the city’s swimming pool department, while the same requirement is not said to apply to approximately 30 permanent coaches.
The new requirement has become a point of dispute among contract staff, who have questioned why periodic medical certification is being imposed only on their category. According to a report by Gujarat Samachar, contract coaches have argued that employment-related rules should be applied consistently to permanent, contract and agency-based personnel.
The department reportedly employed around 30 permanent coaches and about 17 coaches on contract. In addition, approximately 30 to 32 coaches were engaged through a private agency, although the report said contract employees claimed that the new fitness-certificate requirement did not apply to permanent staff and agency personnel in the same manner.
Before the reported change, contract coaches were required to undergo swimming-related tests every six months. The additional instruction to obtain a fitness certificate from an MBBS doctor has created another compliance step for workers whose employment is already governed by contractual conditions. The report did not specify the cost of obtaining the certificate, the deadline for submission or the consequences for coaches who do not provide it.
The disagreement also extends to attendance procedures at the swimming facilities. Employees are reportedly required to mark attendance through the 311 app before their shift begins, record biometric attendance and sign an attendance register. After those steps, a group photograph of all employees must be taken and uploaded to the swimming pool department’s WhatsApp group.
The four-stage process has prompted further dissatisfaction among coaches and other employees, who have questioned the need for multiple attendance records for the same shift. The issue places the focus on how municipal bodies supervise outsourced and directly employed staff, particularly where different employment categories work in the same public facility.
The reported dispute does not establish whether the fitness-certificate instruction is based on a formal written order, a departmental circular or an operational decision. It also does not include a response from the Ahmedabad municipal authority explaining the purpose of the requirement or why it may not apply equally to all categories of coaches.
The immediate issue for the affected coaches is whether the six-month certification rule will remain limited to contract staff and how the attendance process will be administered. The department’s clarification on the rule, its legal or administrative basis and its application to permanent and agency-employed coaches will determine the next stage of the dispute.
