IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17168 of 2009 LALMANI SINGH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 3 13.1.2010 Other details may not be recorded in this part of the order specially in view of the fact that the petitioner had approached this High Court earlier in CWJC No. 2259 of 2008. After hearing both the sides on the issue the High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Corporation. Liberty was given to the Corporation to go for fresh advertisement. The petitioner was given liberty to participate. In the second round of selection the petitioner has lost out again and he is back again to the High Court stating that the respondent Corporation has not honoured the observation or wish of the High Court expressed in CWJC No. 2259 of 2008 which is annexure-11 to the writ application. The so called wish and direction is that the petitioner would be entitled to “some sympathetic consideration” if all other matters remain the same as per the law. The guidelines laid down for selection of dealership does not provide for a column for sympathetic consideration. In absence of any provisions in the guidelines the wish of the High Court has no meaning in the final selection process. If the selection has been carried out strictly in terms of the guidelines and the petitioner has not been able to reach the bench mark, there is no occasion to interfere with the selection based on - 2 - the observation of the High Court. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed accordingly. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)