B. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This Mandamus Appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ -Petitioner and is directed against an order dated April 25, 2006 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 114 (W) of 2006 thereby dismissing the writ application filed by the Appellant on the basis of the submission of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State -Respondent that there was no existing vacancy at that point of time for the appointment of a kerosene oil dealer and as such, there was no scope of considering the representation of the writ -Petitioner for considering his candidature.
(2.) The sum and substance of the allegation made by the Appellant in the said writ -appliation was that a vacancy of kerosene oil dealer was notified by the State Respondent on 15th June, 2005 and pursuant to such a notification, the writ -Petitioner applied for the said vacancy but the State -Respondent without considering the candidature of the writ -Petitioner was going to select the private Respondent No. 5 although the said Respondent was not qualified to be appointed as such dealer.
(3.) As mdicated earlier, on the very first date of moving the said writ application, Mr. Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State -Respondent submitted before the learned single Judge that there was no scope of appointment of any kerosene oil dealer by virtue of the notification of March, 1999 annexed to the writ application and as such, the said writ -application was liable to be dismissed. It appears from the order impugned, that His Lordship accepted the aforesaid submission of Mr. Chatterjee and came to the conclusion that the notification of March, 1999 did not give the writ Petitioner any right to apply for kerosene oil dealership and as such, the writ -application was liable to be dismissed. His Lordship, accordingly, dismissed the writ application.;