Judgment :- In this petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to select him for admission to Medical discipline (MBBS course) under sports category for the academic year 2009. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for admission to medical course under sports category for the year 2009. The petitioner took C.E.T examination conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority, Bangalore and obtained ranking at 5455 in medical discipline (M.B.B.S course) under the sports category. Petitioner is awarded a bronze medal by the Ball Badminton Federation of India recognized by the National Sports Federation and Sports Authority of India. Annexure-C is the certificate produced by the petitioner for having obtained a merit certificate in the 25th (Silver Jubilee) Sub-Junior National Ball Badminton Championship during 2005-2006. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is ranked at 5455 in the merit list under the sports quota, the candidate ranked at 10,827, under the same category, who was below the petitioner has been selected ignoring the petitioner on the ground that the certificate issued by the Ball Badminton Federation of India cannot be considered for selecting the petitioner as there was a dispute between two fractions of the Federation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner taking me through the documents produced including the additional documents produced along with a separate application which is allowed, submits that during the previous year i.e. 2008-2009 one candidate by name Roopesh C.R. was given a seat for Engineering course under sports category through he had produced the merit certificate having obtained bronze medal from the same Federated viz., Ball Badminton Federation of India. 4. State Government and the Karnataka Examination Authority-respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate statement of objections. Their main defence is that as per the communication issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, the Ball Badminton Federation of India is having dispute between the Chairman and its Secretary and therefore from 2004 onwards no funds are released by the Government to the Federation nor there was any dealing with it and hence the authorities have not considered the certificate issued by such a Federation for the MBBS course for the current academic year. In this regard attention of the court is drawn to the communication dated 24.7.09 produced at Annexure R3 along with the statement of objections. 5. In this regard attention of the court is drawn to the communication dated 24.7.09 produced at Annexure R3 along with the statement of objections. 5. A careful perusal of Annexure R3 makes it clear that there is dispute in the management of the Federation and hence the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has neither released any grant to the Federation since 2004 nor had any dealing with either of the disputing groups of the Federation, one led by the President and the other by its Joint Secretary. The respondents have acted on the basis of this communication in not recognizing the Ball Badminton Federation of India for the purpose of considering the certificate issued by the Ball Badminton Federation of India for giving admission under the sports category. 6. It is true, the students who have secured bronze medal and are ranked below the petitioner, as can be seen from Annexure R4 list, are allotted in sports quota in the CET 2009 for medial course. But, the three candidates who have obtained bronze medal viz. Bhavana Vasu, Dauphin D. Kuriakose, Keerthi M.S have obtained the certificates in different games and the Associations or Federations who have issued such certificates are not under any dispute. The respondent authorities have taken a decision not to consider the certificate issued from the associations, which are under dispute. 7. In the instant case the Federation is under dispute and the Central Government is not dealing with the said Federation from 2004. Therefore, if the respondent authorities have taken a decision not to consider the certificate issued by such disputed Federation, the action cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. It is true, the respondent authorities would have been well advised not to include the name of this Federation while issuing the brochure. The 2nd respondent has given a wrong information to the students concerned seeking benefit of the certificate issued by the said Federation that their claim would be considered. But, the fact remains that the respondent authorities have acted on the basis of the communication issued by the Central Government stating that since from the year 2004 the Government has not dealt with this Federation. 8. But, the fact remains that the respondent authorities have acted on the basis of the communication issued by the Central Government stating that since from the year 2004 the Government has not dealt with this Federation. 8. Yet, another reason for not considering favourably the grievance made by the petitioner is that the petitioner has not made the successful candidates who were ranked lower in the sports category and were given admission as party respondents to this petition. If the petitioner has to succeed in this writ petition, one of the candidates who is selected and admitted under the sports category, preferably the last in the merit rank has to be disturbed and in the absence of the said candidate being made a party, the petitioner cannot be granted a relief. 9. The other contention of the petitioner is that during the previous year a candidate by name Roopesh C.R. who had obtained a certificate from the very same Federation was considered and given admission in the Engineering course under the sports category and the respondent authorities cannot take up a contention that for the purpose of M.B.B.S course the certificate issued by the said Federation cannot be considered. The stand of the State Government is that for the last academic year there were several seats in the Engineering course in the sports category which remained unfilled and therefore the Commissioner for Youth Services, taking note of the said situation, did not raise such objection. However, for the current academic year in both, M.B.B.S and Engineering course there was serious competition as large number of contestants had applied and hence the authorities have gone strictly by the communication issued by the Government of India. 10. In the light of this submission made by the learned Government Advocate and in the wake of the facts adverted to herein above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the selection made and the admission already given to the students in the sports quota. 11. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. I must observe at this stage that the respondent authorities shall have to adopt a uniform approach in making selection under the ‘sports category’ and make it clear in the brochure by deleting the name of such Association/Federation which are under dispute and for which they do not intend to extend the benefit. I must observe at this stage that the respondent authorities shall have to adopt a uniform approach in making selection under the ‘sports category’ and make it clear in the brochure by deleting the name of such Association/Federation which are under dispute and for which they do not intend to extend the benefit. It is also necessary for the authorities to consider the nature of dispute existing and whether they should insist for withdrawal of recognition given by the concerned department at the Centre as one of the main criteria before coming to the conclusion that the certificate obtained from such Federation or Association shall not be considered. This will avoid confusion in the mind of the candidates and as also the heart burn that may result at the last moment. The petitioner student in this case is made to come to this court because of this omission on the part of the respondents. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award costs in a sum of Rs.10,000/-to the petitioner payable equally by respondents 1 and 2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.