JUDGMENT

M.M. DAS, J. — The petitioner, for his non-selection as a Storage Agent by the Managing Director, Orissa State Civil Sup¬plies Corporation Ltd. - opp.party No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) at Hatadihi Block in the district of Keonjhar has approached this Court in the present writ petition for appropriate direction.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his name was recommended by the Collector, Keonjhar - opp.party No.3 to be appointed as a Storage Agent. According to him, as per the guide¬lines dated 28.10.2006 issued by the Corporation for appointment of Storage agent, the Collector of the district is the competent authority to make recommendations for such appointment for dif¬ferent Blocks/NACs/Municipal areas. The Collector for such recom¬mendation has to conduct an enquiry through the A.D.M./Sub-Collector or any other officer regarding the correctness of the application and as per the eligibility criteria and disqualifica¬tion norms, he has to recommend the name of the persons for appointment as Storage Agents. The petitioner has further con¬tended that once a person is recommended by the Collector, the Corporation has to accept him and select the same person as the Storage Agent for the respective Block and any variance with the recommendation can be made by the Corporation assigning valid reasons for the same. In the instant case, according to the petitioner, as his name was duly recommended for being appointed as a Storage Agent in Hatadihi Block, the Corporation without assigning any reason has rejected his application and on the other hand, has appointed the opp.party No.5 as the Storage Agent who was not recommended by the Collector.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opp.party No.5, inter alia, stating that in terms of the guidelines, the petitioner along with some others applied to the Collector, Keonjhar for being recommended to be appointed as the Storage Agents. While the Collector recommended the case of the petition¬er to the Corporation, the opp.party No.5 was recommended by the public representatives for being appointed as Storage Agent and there was no such recommendation by any public representative in favour of the petitioner at any time. The case of the opp.Party No.5 was considered in terms of Clauses-VI and VII of the guide¬lines by the Corporation for appointment of Storage Agent. The opp.party No.5 has further asserted that Clause-VI of the guide¬lines provides that the Collector should give due weightage to the view of the Hon’ble M.Ps/M.L.As and other peoples’ represen¬tative of the respective areas. In the instant case, Corporation gave weightage to the recommendation of the peoples representa¬tive and appointed the opp.Party No.5. The opp.party No.5 has also deposited Rs.1.00 lakh towards security deposit on 31.10.2008 in favour of the District Manager of Corporation and thereafter has deposit all relevant documents for execution of the agreement as ordered by the Collector on 16.10.2008. The opp.party No.5 also claims to have spent huge amount for the purpose of construction of go-down and other requirements. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that under Annexure-C/5, a penalty was imposed on Smt. Nirmala Das, who was functioning as a Storage Agent and is the mother of the petitioner and, hence, the petitioner is disqualified for being appointed as a Storage Agent.

The Corporation has also filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that upon receipt of the applications by the Collec¬tor, the Sub-Collector was directed to cause an enquiry on the authenticity of the applications and on his submitting a report, the Collector recommended the name of the petitioner and the opp.party No.4 and one Jogendra Behera on the basis of the same. After receipt of the recommendation of the Collector, Corporation selected the opp.parties 4 and 5 for being appointed as Storage Agents in Hatadihi Block on the condition that in case there are complaints against