JUDGMENT 1. 1. This is a writ petition against the selection held in the year 1981 for the grant of retail outlet dealership of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at Phulera and the petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No. 3 for the aforesaid dealership and has sought a direction against respondents No. 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as retail outlet dealership of the Corporation at Phulera. Shri Mishra appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has experience of 10 years in dealing with the petroleum products and that he held a licence Annexure/1 since 21st February, 1973 which was renewed and validated upto 31st December, 1981. Shri Mishra has also submitted that the petitioner is a holder of a licence under the Rajasthan Trade (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980, which was valid upto 31st December, 1981. It has been further submitted by Shri Mishra with reference to the averments made in para 6 of the writ petition that the petitioner was given a licence by the Caltext Oil Refinery (India) Ltd. He has submitted that the petitioner holds the land for establishing the retail outlet and that he is a party with sound financial status.The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 has been granted this dealership, although respondent No. 3 has never dealt in the business of petroleum products. He does not have any agricultural land and there was no evidence as to the sound financial position of respondent No. 3. He is simply an agriculturist. In substance, the petitioner's grievance is that respondent No. 3 has no aptitude in the business and management and respondents No. l and 2 have acted arbitrarily in the matter of these selections. Shri Kasliwal appearing for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the petitioner's candidature was duly considered in the matter of this selection, but he was placed at No. 3 in the panel. Respondent No. 3 was selected and placed at No. 1 in the panel of selected candidates and accordingly the dealership was given to respondent No. 3 and ever since his selection and appointment as dealer in the year 1982, respondent No. 3 has been running the over-all retail outlet dealership of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Phulera successfully. Respondent No. 3 was selected and placed at No. 1 in the panel of selected candidates and accordingly the dealership was given to respondent No. 3 and ever since his selection and appointment as dealer in the year 1982, respondent No. 3 has been running the over-all retail outlet dealership of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Phulera successfully. It has been stated in the reply filed by respondent No. 2 that selections were held by the Divisional Manager and two other senior officers of the two other Oil Corporations. So far as the eligibility is concerned, the respondents have considered the candidature of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 and both of them have been found to be eligible. This Court in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot take upon itself to decide as to whether respondent No. 3 has the business and management aptitude or not. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not considered by the Selection Committee in the matter of these selections. In such matters, if the expert body, in which high ranking officers of the oil refinery companies were there and even if they have placed respondent No. 3 at No. 1 and the petitioner at No. 1, this Court cannot substitute its own decision for the decision made by the expert body in this regard. The counsel for the petitioner has cited before me Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 212 , paras 18, 21, 24, 27, 35 and 36. I have considered the submissions made in this regard by Shri Mishra with reference to the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment. The observations to which reference has been made by Shri Mishra hardly cover any of the grievances which have been raised by him. All these observations deal with the exposition of scope of Article 14 of the Constitution of India with reference to the appointment and continuance of Government Law Officers in the contractual field. In my opinion, these observations, as have been made, are of no avail to the petitioner in as much as the petitioner's candidature has been duly considered by the Selection Committee and it has not been made out that the respondents and the expert body has acted with any arbitrariness in the matter of these selections. In my opinion, these observations, as have been made, are of no avail to the petitioner in as much as the petitioner's candidature has been duly considered by the Selection Committee and it has not been made out that the respondents and the expert body has acted with any arbitrariness in the matter of these selections. Shri Mishra has failed to persuade me to agree to his suggestion to substitute the court's wisdom in the matter of holding a particular party to be suitable or otherwise. 2. I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******