M. M. Kumar; C.J.:— 1. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Rules, 1999 is directed against judgment and order dated 26.11.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition, where in it was claimed that the re-constitution of the J&K State Sports Council suffer from legal infirmity as the members nominated to the Council were not qualified within the meaning of sub rule (iv) of Rule 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Sports Council Rules. It would be appropriate to read the aforesaid rule at the out set:- "iv) Twenty three members from amongst outstanding sports persons, persons of repute connected with organization of Sports and Games in the State, well known Physical Educationists, Sports Correspondents and Commentators and representatives of recognized Association". 2. A perusal of the aforesaid rule would show-that 23 members are to be selected from amongst outstanding Sports persons, such reputed persons connected with the organization of sports and games in the State or well-known physical educationists, Sports Correspondents and Commentators and representatives of recognized Associations. 3. The case of the petitioner-appellants was sought to be supported by seven illustrations given in para no. 7 of the writ petition alleging that in terms of Rule 5 (iv) they were not eligible and the petitioner-appellant were. All the instances have been categorically controverted and the antecedents of each of the members have been given. For example, under instance no. 1, respondent no. 10 is alleged to have been' nominated merely on the basis that he was a resident of Baramulla and respondent no. 15 was alleged to have been nominated as member merely in his capacity as Secretary Sports Council. In the reply to instance no. 1 it has been clarified that respondent no. 10 was not nominated merely because he was a resident of Baramulla and that respondent no. 15 was a former Secretary. In fact respondent no. 10 was found to be a promoter of sports and had served as a Physical Education Teacher. He was also office bearer of the Football Association Kashmir Wing and had contributed a lot for sports in Kashmir Valley. His certificates of outstanding efforts for promotion of sports were placed on record (Annexure R1 and R2). In fact respondent no. 10 was found to be a promoter of sports and had served as a Physical Education Teacher. He was also office bearer of the Football Association Kashmir Wing and had contributed a lot for sports in Kashmir Valley. His certificates of outstanding efforts for promotion of sports were placed on record (Annexure R1 and R2). Apart from the aforesaid factual position, it has further been explained that he was previously nominated as member the Council for two spells in the year 1995 and 2001. Likewise, in respect of respondent no. 15 it was clarified that he was Vice President of Jammu and Kashmir Roller Skating Association and Chairman of Table Tennis Association. He had also been the Secretary of J&K Sports Council for two terms which add to his rich experience of administration. In addition he was an outstanding Golfer being Executive Member of the Kashmir Golf Club. A number of other activities showing that he was a sports person were also depicted along with the certificates issued in his favour (Annexure R3 and R4). It is obvious that both these persons are fully covered by Rule 5 (iv) of the Rules. 4. Under the second instance, the petitioners levelled similar allegations against respondent no. 25. It has been stated in the reply that she was previously President of the J&K Womens Hockey Association but was replaced by one Mrs. Gurvinder Kour (Annexure E and E1). The allegation was that the aforesaid Association has been merged with the J&K Mens Hockey Association. In the reply it has been denied that there was any merger of Women's Hockey Association of J&K with Mens Hockey Association. On the contrary it was stated that the Women's Hockey Association, which has been working with its activities on its own, has only been affiliated to Indian Women's Association, which is far from merger. Similarly replies and details have been furnished in respect of instances no. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. On the contrary it was stated that the Women's Hockey Association, which has been working with its activities on its own, has only been affiliated to Indian Women's Association, which is far from merger. Similarly replies and details have been furnished in respect of instances no. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Even the learned Single Judge, after extracting the provisions of Rule 5 (iv) of the Rules, providing for composition of the Council, has reached the conclusion which would read as follows:- "By referring to some of the names mentioned in the order impugned particularly the names figuring at S. No. 12, 17, 21 & 27 learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that these persons have no connection with the sports field as such have wrongly been included to become the members of the Council. The details given by the petitioners in this behalf again raises questions of fact whether in the circumstances stated by the petitioners these members can be treated as falling within the category of sports personal mentioned in 5(iv) or not. The crux of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the persons who are nominated under sub rule should be representatives of recognized association and that since the petitioner is also one of the recognized association and its name figures in the list of recognized State Sports Associations (Annexure-B) a representative of the Association should also have been included in the list. A plain reading of the sub rule would, however, show that while making nomination of the members, the respondents need not necessarily select only a representative of the recognized association, they can make nomination of any person who is an outstanding sports person, persons of repute connected with organization of Sports and Games in the State, is a well known physical Educationists or a Sports Correspondents and Commentators besides being representative of Association. The decision in this behalf has to be taken by the Government while making selection and any such decision cannot be interfered with by the Courts while exercising writ jurisdiction". 5. It is obvious from the reading of the aforesaid para that the grievance of the petitioners-appellants was that being a recognized Association, their representative should have been included in the list. 5. It is obvious from the reading of the aforesaid para that the grievance of the petitioners-appellants was that being a recognized Association, their representative should have been included in the list. Obviously there is no right vested in the appellant by Rule 5 (iv) of the Rules to acquire membership of the Council and in that regard the learned Single Judge has taken the correct view. 6. The counsel for the petitioners-appellants could not advance any argument on merit or otherwise which may warrant a different view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is wholly without merit and does not merit admission. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.