IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1849 of 2010 1. SMT.URMILA DEVI W/O SRI VIJAY CHOUDHARY R/O VILL.- IMBRAHIMPUR, P.O.- KUDAWAIN, P.S.- KARAKAT (GORAR), DISTT.- ROHTAS (SASARAM) 2. TAPESHWAR RAM S/O LAL MOHAR RAM R/O VILL.+P.O.- KACHHAWAIN, P.S.- KACHHAWAIN, DISTT.- ROHTAS (SASARAM) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPTT., OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS, DISTT.- ROHTAS (SASARAM) 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIKRAMGANJ, DISTT.- ROHTAS (SASARAM) ----------- 2. 05.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner desires issuance of a licence as a P.D.S. dealer on recommendation made in his favour on 6.11.2006 in pursuance of which the District Selection Committee returned his application for submission of Form-I on 31.3.2007. A recommendation does not tantamount to appointment and no mandamus shall lie for the enforcement of the recommendation. On the own showing of the petitioner the District Selection Committee did not act on the recommendation. In any event of the matter, the recommendation is of the year 2006 and the acts of the District Selection Committee of 2007. At this stage, in the year 2011, the Court is not persuaded to make any observation for consideration of the case of the 2 petitioner on the aforesaid basis as several intervening factors may have arisen in the meantime. However, if the respondents invite fresh applications for grant of dealership and the petitioner applies in response to the same, needless to state that it has to be considered in accordance with law and that the Court may have declined him relief in the present writ application shall not prejudice him in consideration and appointment if otherwise eligible. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observation. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)