ORDER : R. DEVDAS, J. In both these writ petitions, the petitioners have called in question the conferment of ‘Ekalavya Award’ by the respondent-State Government, on persons arrayed as respondents i.e., non-official respondents. The awards pertain to the year 2012 in both the writ petitions. Since common questions arise in both the petitions, they are heard and decided together. 2. In W.P.No.38600/2013, Ekalavya Award for the year 2012, in the sporting event “Skating” has been called in question, while in W.P.No.39640/2013, the sporting event is “Swimming”. 3. Sri B.S.Raghu Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions would submit that the conferment of award in favour of the respondents is contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government, in the matter of fixing criteria and eligibility, while conferring the Ekalavya Award. 4. The learned counsel has taken this Court through Annexures ‘A’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ which form part of Annexures enclosed along with the writ petition and Annexure ‘R2’, produced by the State Government, along with its statement of objections. According to the learned counsel, these Annexures are the ‘Rules’ governing the selection of Ekalavya awardees. The learned counsel submits that the respondent-State Government has not followed the guidelines and therefore the awards conferred on the respondents should either be revoked or in the alternative, the petitioners in both the petitions should be declared as winners of the Ekalavya Award for the year 2012, in the light of the guidelines issued by the State Government. 5. Learned Counsel points out to certain clauses and conditions imposed in the guidelines such as ‘eligibility’ wherein a person becomes eligible only if he/she has good performance, consistently for the preceding five years, at the recognized State/Zonal/National and International level Sports and has also shown the qualities of leadership and sportsmanship. Emphasis is laid on the words “consistently preceding five years”. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that these words are found at Annexures-A, E and F. Further it is pointed out from AnnexureR2, which is a Government order bearing No.USeE 146, USeKri 2013, Bengaluru dated 01.08.2013, by which the members of the Skating committee and selection committee are appointed by the State Government, that the same requirement finds place therein. In continuation, the ‘guidelines’ for Karnataka Ekalavya award are annexed to the Government order dated 01.08.2013. In continuation, the ‘guidelines’ for Karnataka Ekalavya award are annexed to the Government order dated 01.08.2013. The learned counsel submits that as per Clause12 of the guidelines, which fixed the eligibility, a person in order to be eligible for the awards should have represented the State for the last five years in National and International sporting events and should have shown qualities of leadership and sportsmanship. In this regard, the learned counsel points out that as regards Ms.Varsha S. Puranik, who was conferred with the Ekalavya award for the year 2012 in the sporting event of ‘skating’, she did not represent the State of Karnataka in National level or International level sporting event in the year 2008 and therefore she was found, not to have consistently participated for the last five consecutive years and therefore she was not eligible for the award. 7. Reliance is also placed on a copy of the application made by Ms.Varsha S. Puranik, while claiming the Ekalavya award, wherein, along with the application a ‘note’ is put up by Ms.Varsha S. Puranik stating that she was unable to participate in the National Championship that was held at Vishakapatnam, since she was writing her M.B.B.S. examination and the dates of the National Championship and her Exams coincided. 8. Similarly, with respect to the other respondent i.e., Ms.Sanjana Srinivas, the learned counsel submits that she never participated in the skating championship, while she participated in “Ice skating” which is not an event recognized for conferring Ekalavya awards. 9. The learned counsel points out to Annexure-II accompanying AnnexureR2, filed by the respondent-State along with its statement of objections. At Serial No.22 in Annexure-II, in the list of sports disciplines eligible for Ekalavya award, the word ‘skating’ is found. 10. According to the learned counsel, ‘skating’ refers to ‘Roller skating’ only and it does not include ‘Ice skating’. It is therefore contended that Ms.Sanjana Srinivas was not eligible for Ekalavya award, since she did not participate in Roller Skating event, while she participated only in ‘Ice skating’ event. 11. With respect to respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.39640/2013 i.e., Sri. Arjun. J.P, it was submitted that Sri. Arjun J.P did not represent State of Karnataka for five years preceding the year 2012, while he represented Railways and therefore, he is not eligible for conferment of Ekalavya award. 12. 11. With respect to respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.39640/2013 i.e., Sri. Arjun. J.P, it was submitted that Sri. Arjun J.P did not represent State of Karnataka for five years preceding the year 2012, while he represented Railways and therefore, he is not eligible for conferment of Ekalavya award. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the third respondent in W.P.No.38600/2013 had canvassed for conferment of the awards, which is a disqualification, in terms of Clause 11 of the Rules for Ekalavya awards, as approved in Government Order No.PTY 308 EPE 99 dated 18.09.2000. The learned counsel submits that canvassing in any form in respect of an entry will render that entry liable for disqualification. 13. The learned counsel would further point out to Annexure-W, which is a letter dated 20.08.2013 written by Joint Secretary to Chief Minister addressed to Commissioner, Department of Youth Service and Sports, Bengaluru. In the said letter it is stated that Ms.Sanjana Srinivas, has appealed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for conferment of Ekalavya award and therefore it was requested to examine in accordance with law and take steps accordingly. In the light of this, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ms.Sanjana Srinivas is disqualified and not eligible for Ekalavya awards. 14. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that even as per the guidelines issued by the State Government, in every sporting event, the award should be conferred on one male candidate and one female candidate. While in the case of Skating, the Ekalavya award for the year 2012, which was conferred in the year 2013, was given away to two sportswomen and thus it is in violation of the guidelines issued by the State Government. 15. In the light of such provision, it was submitted that the claim of the petitioner Chiranth Bharadwaj, should have been considered either in the place of Ms.Varsha S.Puranik or Ms.Sanjana Srinivas. 16. Defending the awards, Sri. A.V.Amarnathan, learned counsel representing Ms.Varsha S.Puranik, would submit that these writ petitions should not be entertained. The learned counsel submits that in the matter of conferment of awards for sports excellence, it is the expert body alone that would decide, taking into consideration the achievement of the person and the conferment of awards are not open for judicial review. 17. A.V.Amarnathan, learned counsel representing Ms.Varsha S.Puranik, would submit that these writ petitions should not be entertained. The learned counsel submits that in the matter of conferment of awards for sports excellence, it is the expert body alone that would decide, taking into consideration the achievement of the person and the conferment of awards are not open for judicial review. 17. Similarly Sri.V.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri.J.P.Arjun, would submit that very recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of conferment of Arjuna awards for sports excellence, held that “this is not a subject matter of judicial review. You cannot bring such matter for judicial review. It is not justifiable.” In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court seems to have asked the petitioner, “is it a fundamental right to get Arjuna award? What is your fundamental right which has been violated? There are much more deserving persons who do not get and could not make it to Arjuna award and there are also some who get, though not deserving”. It was also observed that, “even if you have not got Arjuna award, a person can be a good sportsperson”. 18. The learned counsel would further submit that the SLP was withdrawn and therefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not have the occasion to deal with the matter in depth. The learned counsel would place reliance on other judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Orissa, in case of Sricharan Pratap Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in Manu/OR/0407/2012, wherein the conferment of ‘Sahitya Academy’ award on a particular person was called in question. The Hon’ble Division Bench took note of the fact that a team of eminent stalwarts in the field of literature have been formed and they have selected/nominated the Book in question and in such matters, the Court does not have expertise. Therefore, it has to be slow in disturbing the decision taken by the Committee of experts, working in the field, who have day to day experience, and who have acquired special skill and special knowledge in the subject and the field. 19. While referring to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of University of Mysore & Anr. Vs. 19. While referring to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of University of Mysore & Anr. Vs. C.D.Govindarao & Anr., reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 , wherein it was held that in academic matters where the decision under challenge has been taken by the Committee of Experts, “normally the Court should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts”. 20. Statement of objections have also been filed on behalf of the Karnataka Rollers Skating Association and the State of Karnataka. Sri. M.Byre Gowda, learned Counsel representing the Association and learned AGA would submit that the Committee has made the recommendation in terms of the guidelines issued and no fault could be found in the decision of the Experts body. 21. The learned AGA would point out to clause8 of the Government order dated 18.09.2000 which provides that “Notwithstanding the entries received from the organization specified in Rule 4, the Government may give Ekalavya Awards to any Sportsmen/women considering their outstanding performance”. 22. Clause14 would provide that in respect of interpretation of Rules, the decision of the Government would be final and no appeal shall lie against it. 23. In the light of the above, it is submitted by the learned AGA that the selection committee has considered the claim of every applicant and awarded points in every category and along with the marks awarded to each candidate, the recommendations were made to the State Government. The decision of the State Government in this regard is final and there cannot be any appeal in this regard. 24. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels, what remains to be decided in this case is whether these petitions should be entertained and whether the relief sought could be granted by this Court? 25. The conferment of Ekalavya award in all these cases is for the year 2012. Much water has flown after the awards were conferred in the year 2013. The prayer is to quash the impugned orders whereby the State Government recognized excellence in the sporting events and encouraged sportsman to further do well and bring laurels, both, to the State and to the Nation. 26. There is no gainsaying the spirit of sportsmanship is regarded as the greatest quality of a sportsman. The prayer is to quash the impugned orders whereby the State Government recognized excellence in the sporting events and encouraged sportsman to further do well and bring laurels, both, to the State and to the Nation. 26. There is no gainsaying the spirit of sportsmanship is regarded as the greatest quality of a sportsman. Sportsman spirit is the essential quality that makes sportsmen endearing and every sportsmen should be eager to do well and participate and do his/her best to fulfill the sporting spirit that prevails in that individual. The entire exercise of conferment of award, is in fact in recognition of the spirit of sportsmanship. Awards and laurels should come in search of sportsmen and sportsmen should not go in search of such awards. 27. During the course of the arguments, when the comparative study or the awarding of marks to the individuals or applicants was placed before this Court, it is found that the expert committee had, in fact, taken into consideration the requirements and the entire exercise is to pick sportsperson who is best suited for the awards. 28. In the case of Sri. J.P. Arjun, it was found that he is a person who was born and brought up in the State of Karnataka. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for Sri.J.P. Arjun would point out to the proceedings of the selection committee, dated 07.08.2013. The learned counsel would point out to that portion of the proceedings where the Committee had consciously taken a decision that sports persons from Karnataka who were representing Railways and Services and won laurels, should also be considered for conferment of Ekalavya awards. 29. As per application made by Sri. J.P. Arjun, he started swimming at the age of 6 in Basavanagudi Aquatic Center and continued till 2009. He has stated, he has represented Karnataka from 1997 and participated in Commonwealth Games 2010, Asian Games, World Championships, South Asian Federation Games and in various events. It is also stated in the application that Sri. J.P. Arjun had applied for Ekalavya Awards in 2007, 2008 and 2009. He has represented Karnataka in National Games held at Jarkhand in February 2011 and got three gold medals and two silver medals. 30. As regards Ms.Varsha S.Puranik, along with the statement of objections, she has produced her credentials both at the National and International levels. J.P. Arjun had applied for Ekalavya Awards in 2007, 2008 and 2009. He has represented Karnataka in National Games held at Jarkhand in February 2011 and got three gold medals and two silver medals. 30. As regards Ms.Varsha S.Puranik, along with the statement of objections, she has produced her credentials both at the National and International levels. It is found that Ms.Varsha S.Puranik started participation at the National Level Championships in the event of Skating from the year 1992. In the year 1999 she was the Individual Champion of the country. Similarly for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007 to 2012, she has been the National Champion without any break and represented the country in the international level. 31. Ms.Varsha S.Puranik has represented the country from the year 2001. In the year 2008 she has participated in East & Middle European Regional Training Camp, Hungary. In 2010, she has participated in 16th Asian games at China and was positioned at No.5 and 7. In the year 2012 she has participated in the World Inline Speed skating Championship 2012 at Italy and the 15th Asian Roller Skating Championships, China. In the marks sheet prepared by the Selection Committee, Ms.Varsha S.Puranik has been awarded 695 marks, while the petitioner Chiranth H. Bharadwaj has been awarded 315 marks. 32. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been harping on the condition in the guidelines which would stipulate that a person would be eligible for Ekalavya award if he or she has represented the State Government for five consecutive years without any break. 33. Primarily, these are guidelines which have no force of law. The guidelines are issued so that Selection Committee will have a broad outline within which they could consider the applications of eligible candidates. The particular clause that is strenuously emphasized by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be stretched to the extent that the person having participated at the National and International level for nearly 10-12 years and for some unfortunate reason is unable to participate in one championship at the National level, in a particular year, would become disqualified for the conferment of Ekalavya awards. This interpretation would only take away the very spirit of the awards. In the case of Ms.Varsha Puranik, the Committee has found that she has been individual champion for the nation in the event of skating for more than 7-8 years. 34. This interpretation would only take away the very spirit of the awards. In the case of Ms.Varsha Puranik, the Committee has found that she has been individual champion for the nation in the event of skating for more than 7-8 years. 34. Having considered all these aspects, if the Committee is of the opinion that she is best suited for the conferment of the highest state award, no fault could be found with the Selection Committee. As stated earlier, conferment of awards for excellence in the field of sports should necessarily look for the best sportsmen. The guidelines should not become stumbling blocks which could technically take away the achievements and the services rendered by the sports person. Moreover, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has pointed out, these are not matters where judicial review should indeed, be permitted. 35. As far as the issue as to whether ‘Ice skating’ is an event, which falls under category of ‘skating’, it is best left to the decision of the Selection Committee. The sporting discipline mentioned is ‘skating’ and it does not specify whether it is roller skating or Ice skating or it includes both. Once again it is the expert body which has decided on conferment of the award and it has to be respected. It is also a fact that all these persons including the petitioners have been participating in the field of skating both Roller Skating and Ice skating. It is not for this Court to decide whether the definition of ‘skating’ would include Ice skating or not. The expert committee has gone into all these aspects and decided to confer the award in favour of second and third respondents. On similar lines, this Court is of the opinion that merely because the guidelines state that the Committee would endeavour to choose one male candidate and one female candidate from each sporting event, it cannot be said that it is a mandatory requirement. 36. If it is found that two sportswomen have excelled in a particular field and the expert body is of the opinion that the Ekalavya awards for that particular year has to be given to both the sportswomen, no fault can be found in the decision of the Expert Committee. Once again the decision of the State Government is final in this regard. Once again the decision of the State Government is final in this regard. The State Government is aware that one of the stipulation in the guidelines is that the awards may be conferred on one male candidate and one female candidate every year, but it cannot be a straitjacket formula. 37. The allegation of the petitioner that since the Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister addressed a letter to the Commissioner, Department of Youth Services and Sports, Ms.Sanjana Srinivas, should have been disqualified, does not appeal to this Court. The letter is not a recommendation. It simply says that the candidature of Ms.Sanjana Srinivas, could be considered in accordance with law. 38. In the light of discussion above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitions are devoid of merits and therefore deserve to be dismissed. These petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.