IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18242 of 2009 1. PRABHU PASWAN S/O BIPAT PASWAN R/O MOH- LAKHIBAG MASAURHI, P.S. MASAURHI, DISTT. PATNA 2. SITA RAM MOCHI S/O LATE ARJUN MOCHI R/O VILL- JAMALPUR, P.S. MASAURHI, DISTT. PATNA 3. AJAY PASWAN S/O SUKHADHI PASWAN R/O VILL- TINERI, P.S. MASAURHI, DISTT. PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY DEPTT., PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PATNA 3. THE S.D.O. MASAURHI SUB-DIVISION DISTT. PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN PATNA ----------- 2. 11.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for a Public Distribution System dealership. It is his case that establishment of dealership is decided on the basis of population of the subscribers concerned in a particular area. Certain applications were made in the year 2004 with regard to the number of PDS shops to be established. His case was placed before the District Selection Committee in August, 2004 and recommendation was made and that vacancies did exist. His grievance is that recently he had come to know that three persons had been appointed as PDS dealer without considering his case despite a recommendation and now a report had come on 29.5.2009 that there was no vacancy available. 2 Learned counsel relies upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8003 of 2009 by which directions were given to consider the case in light of the recommendation. The facts as appearing in the present case appear different. The questions of law arising for consideration that arises do not appear to have been pressed before the Court when the order in C.W.J.C. No. 8003 of 2009 came to be passed. The law stands well settled that a mere recommendation does not amount to grant of the dealership. A recommendation is part of a decision making process. It may fructify or it may not fructify. If it does not fructify, the citizen can certainly question the action and it is found to be arbitrary, perverse and unlawful even a recommendation can vest a legal claim. Presently, no such case has been made out by the petitioner. This aspect of the law stands long and well established. If an authority be needed, in State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220], the Supreme Court held : "The mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government had departed from the rules 3 in this respect” Secondly, on the own showing of the petitioner there was a recommendation in his favour in August, 2004. He chose to sleep over this recommendation and when he became aware of certain others having been appointed, which date he refrains from mentioning, present writ application has been filed in the year 2009 nearly 5 years later on the plea that it was wrong to that no vacancy existed as he had earlier been recommended. What may have been relevant in 2004, factually established when the shop and location of Public Distribution System shops is a matter of executive policy may not necessarily be relevant in the year 2009. The petitioner has only himself to blame for not having been vigilant even if he had a case to pursue by sleeping over the matter for five long years. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)