1 36 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5212/2010. Dilip Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 7th June 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI (Vacation Judge) Mr. Paramveer Singh for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the process of invitation of applications for appointment of dealer of fair price shop at Banar, District Jodhpur as stated in the press-note dated 28.04.2010. The petitioner submits that pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2008, he applied for being appointed as the dealer of the fair price shop at Banar; that he was called for interview on 25.08.2008; that, after due consideration, the Allotment Committee found him suitable and placed him at Merit No. 1 (Annex.3); and that, as required, he deposited the security amount of Rs. 1,000/- on 23.10.2008 (Annex.4). The petitioner further submits that due to the impending elections, further proceedings and finalisation of the dealership were stayed by the order dated 25.11.2008 (Annex.5); and after completion of elections, though directions were sought by the District Supply Officer, Jodhpur (DSO) under the communication dated 18.12.2008 (Annex.6) but nothing happened in the matter and then, to the utter surprise, a press-item was published in the newspaper dated 28.04.2010 2 to the effect that fresh applications had been invited by the DSO for allotment of fair price shops in Jodhpur District. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents are not justified in seeking to invite the applications afresh in relation to the shop for which the petitioner had already been selected and without even passing any order in relation to the application made by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondents are debarred from the principles of promissory estoppel from appointing any other person as a dealer of the shop in question; and that the respondents have treated the petitioner discriminately inasmuch as many other fair price shops, like those at Kankelao and Goyala Kalan, have been finalised after the elections. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had the reasonable expectation of being appointed as dealer and there is no reason that he is sought to be denied of his rights. The submissions aforesaid do not make out a case for issuance of any writ, order or direction at the instance of the petitioner. The submissions on behalf of the petitioner proceed on the assumption as if he has any vested legal right to be appointed as fair price shop dealer at Banar for having participated in the earlier selection process and for having been placed at merit No.1. The assumption, in the opinion of this Court, remains misplaced. For merely being an applicant or the person standing in merit in the selection process for appointment of dealer of a fair price shop which had not been 3 taken to finality, the petitioner cannot be considered having acquired any legal right to be appointed as a dealer. Whether to appoint and when to appoint a dealer for a particular shop for the purpose of managing the distribution of the concerned commodities is ultimately the matter for consideration of the Government; and even if the Government took up the process of selection at the earlier point of time, it cannot be said that merely for merit standing in such selection, the Government was obliged to appoint the petitioner as dealer. As seen in the present case, for a valid reason of impending elections, the process was put in abeyance; and the proposition made by the Committee on 25.08.2008 was declined by the DSO as per the noting available on the document Annex.3 because of the ban imposed by the Government; and thereafter, the process was never finalised. With lapse of about 1½ years from the earlier selection process, if the respondents chose to to take up the process of selection afresh, in the opinion of this Court, the exercise remains unexceptionable; and neither the principles of promissory estoppel nor of legitimate expectation could be held applicable. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the submission that the respondents had not passed any order in relation to the application made by the petitioner earlier remains hollow and of no effect. In relation to such selection process, there does not appear any requirement wherefor the respondents were obliged to pass separate order for annulment of the selection process. 4 The submissions invoking the ground of discrimination are also baseless. Apart that all the necessary particulars regarding the other referred shops at Kankelao and Goyala Kalan have not been stated by the petitioner, again, the position remains that it is ultimately for the Government to decide as to which particular shop is to be managed in what manner. Put in a nutshell, this Court is unable to find any case of infringement of any legal of the petitioner so as to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), VJ. //Mohan//