Judgment 1. By these two writ applications a common prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the selection of respondent No. 5 in both the cases in awarding of a retail out let dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at Jokihat, District Araria on the recommendation of the Selection Board (Bihar), Patna, and for issuance of a writ of mandamus to grant letter of intent in favour of the petitioners for retail outlet dealership at Jokihat, which has been illegally denied to them. Therefore, these two writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. 3. It appears that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, respondent No. 2, had issued an advertisement in the daily newspaper "Nav Bharat" on 21-1-1993, as contained in Annexure-1 to both the writ applications, inviting applications for grant of retail outlet dealership at Jokihat, District Araria Pursuant to the advertisement, these two petitioners, along with others, including respondent No. 5, applied for the dealership of retail outlet. The petitioners and respondent No. 5 along with others were interviewed by the Oil Selection Board, respondent No. 4, on 30-6-1994 for the award of largess. Thereafter, a merit list was prepared, in which respondent No. 5 was shown at Sl. No. 1 and the petitioner Md. Irshadur Rahman of C.W.J.C. No. 10256 of 1994, was shown at Sl. No. 2 and since respondent No. 5 was at Sl. No. 1 he was finally selected and the letter of intent was issued in favour of respondent No. 5. 4. It has commonly been urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the Oil Selection Board, respondent No. 4, has not acted in selecting respondent No. 5 for the dealership as per the terms of the advertisement, as contained in Annexure-1, and they have acted unreasonably and arbitrarily in ignoring the cases of the petitioners, who were eligible for the dealership license. 5. It has been urged that petitioner Md. Manzoor Alam of C.W.J.C. No. 2953 of 1995 was an unemployed Engineering Graduate and as per the Clause 3(B)(ii) of the advertisement if the selection was to be made from amongst the unemployed graduates, then preference would be given to unemployed Engineering Graduates. 5. It has been urged that petitioner Md. Manzoor Alam of C.W.J.C. No. 2953 of 1995 was an unemployed Engineering Graduate and as per the Clause 3(B)(ii) of the advertisement if the selection was to be made from amongst the unemployed graduates, then preference would be given to unemployed Engineering Graduates. So far as the case of this petitioner is concerned, since he was an unemployed Engineering Graduate he should have been given preference. 6. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioners that since it was a case of grant of largess, the authorities concerned being State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, were expected to act reasonably and should not have selected respondent No. 5 when the petitioners were better qualified and were in viable position to run the dealership in question. 7. It has also been urged that the Oil Selection Board, respondent No. 4, has not assigned any reason as to on what ground the petitioners have been disqualified for grant of the largess. 8. In these cases, counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 and also on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 4. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 and the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 submitted that the selection of respondent No. 5 is not arbitrary nor it is in violation of the terms of the advertisement, as contained in Annexure-1, and the authorities have acted reasonably and in public interest. It has also been submitted that respondent No. 5 was shown at Sl. No. 1 in the panel, whereas petitioner Md. Irshadur Rahman of C.W.J.C. No. 10256 of 1994 was shown at Sl. No. 2, whereas petitioner of another writ application, namely, Md. Manzoor Alam was not even empanelled. It has also been submitted that respondent No. 4, the Oil Selection Board, in all respect found respondent No. 5 fit and viable for running the dealership and, accordingly, the dealership was granted in his favour. It has also been submitted that for grant of licence the Board is not required to assign reasons. 10. It has also been submitted that respondent No. 4, the Oil Selection Board, in all respect found respondent No. 5 fit and viable for running the dealership and, accordingly, the dealership was granted in his favour. It has also been submitted that for grant of licence the Board is not required to assign reasons. 10. From the pleadings of the parties, both in the writ applications as well as in the counter-affidavits, it appears that the petitioners were duly interviewed by the Oil Selection Board and the Board on close scrutiny of the matter found the respondent No. 5 fit and viable for the dealership licence. There is nothing on record to show from the side of the petitioners that they have ever made any complaint against the action of the Board to the authorities concerned. 11. Now coming to the advertisement, as contained in Annexure-1, it appears that minimum qualification for the applicant was matriculate and its equivalent degree from a recognised institution. However in Clause 3(B)(ii) of the advertisement it has been mentioned that if the selection is to be made from amongst the unemployed graduates, preference shall be given to unemployed Engineering Graduates. 12. Since the minimum qualification has been laid down in the advertisement as matriculate and the selection has not been made from amongst the unemployed graduates as it appears from the facts of this case, and since the respondent No. 5 was matriculate it cannot be said that the selection has been made in contravention of the advertisement as contained in Annexure-1. 13. Now the question to be decided in this case, as to whether the selection of respondent No. 5 as a dealer of the retail outlet is arbitrary and unreasonable. The Oil Selection Board, respondent No. 4, is an independent Body constituted by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt. of India, consisting of a retired High Court Judge as its Chairman and two members. The Board is entrusted with the work of selection of the candidates, for selecting dealers, distributors etc. for the public sector oil companies. The Board after close scrutiny of the respective cases of the candidates asks the eligible candidates to appear for interview and after taking interview the Selection Board prepares a panel for eligible candidates for grant of dealership licence. 14. for the public sector oil companies. The Board after close scrutiny of the respective cases of the candidates asks the eligible candidates to appear for interview and after taking interview the Selection Board prepares a panel for eligible candidates for grant of dealership licence. 14. It has been settled by catena of decisions by the appex Court that the State and its instrumentalities, which are the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, while awarding contract or distributing largess must act in a fair and reasonable manner and their action or the procedure followed by them must be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness and public interest, and the same must meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. In M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1992 , it has been held as under :"11. So far as the first limitation is concerned, it flows directly from the thesis that unlike a private individual the State cannot act as it pleases in the matter of giving largess. Though ordinarily a private individual would be guided by economic considerations of selfgain in any action taken by him, it is always open to him under the law to act contrary to his self-interest or to oblige another in entering into a contract, or dealing with his property. But the Government is not free to act as it likes in granting largess such as awarding a contract or selling or leasing out its property. Whatever be its activity, the Government is still the Government and is, subject to restraints inherent in its position in a democratic society. The constitutional power conferred on the Government cannot be exercised by it arbitrarily or capriciously or in an unprincipled manner, it has to be exercised for the public good. Every activity of the Government has a public element in it and it must, therefore, be informed with reason and guided by public interest. Every action taken by the Government must be in public interest; the Government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated. Every activity of the Government has a public element in it and it must, therefore, be informed with reason and guided by public interest. Every action taken by the Government must be in public interest; the Government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated. If the Government awards a contract or leases out or otherwise deals with its property or grants any other largess, it would be liable to be tested for its validity on the touchstone of reasonableness and public interest and if it fails to satisfy either test, it would be unconstitutional and invalid." 16. In the light of the aforesaid legal proposition, now it has to be decided in this case as to whether the Corporation has acted arbitrarily in the matter of selection of respondent No. 3 as a dealer. 17. From the facts of the case, it appears that the petitioners, vis-a-vis, respondent No. 5, were interviewed by the Oil Selection Board and in the panel the name of respondent No. 5 was shown at Sl. No. 1, whereas the name of petitioner Md. Irshadur Rahman has been shown at Sl. No. 2 and the another petitioner has not been empanelled. 18. So far as the eligibility of respondent No. 5 is concerned, that also have been found befitting with the advertisement. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had ever complained about the acts of the Board nor there is anything to show on behalf of the petitioners that they were in a better position than respondent No. 5 for grant of dealership. Mare so, the power of the Court to review the administrative action is well defined and it cannot act as an appellate authority nor it can put itself in place of administrative authority exercising the power vested in law. This Court has only to see as to whether the acts of the authorities, who are state instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution, have acted fairly and reasonably. 19. On close scrutiny of the facts, it appears to me that respondent No. 5 has been found to be a lit and viable for running the dealership in comparison in the petitioners and since he was at Sl. No. 1 in the panel, he was to be selected. I also find that the petitioner Md. 19. On close scrutiny of the facts, it appears to me that respondent No. 5 has been found to be a lit and viable for running the dealership in comparison in the petitioners and since he was at Sl. No. 1 in the panel, he was to be selected. I also find that the petitioner Md. Manzoor Alam, who claims to be an unemployed Engineering Graduate has not even been found for empanelling him by the Board and since respondent No. 5 was possessing the minimum qualification as required by the advertisement, as contained in Annexure-1, it cannot be said that the Oil Selection Board has acted unreasonably and arbitrarily. 20. I have already indicated above that there is nothing on record to show that the selection was arbitrary or whimsical and the Selection committee did not act fairly towards a particular candidate and on the contrary I find that the petitioner Md. Irshadur Rahman was placed at Sl. No. 2 in the panel and the another petitioner was not even empanelled. That by itself indicates that there was a proper consideration of their case and they have been treated fairly. Particularly in this case, I find that the Selection Committee consisted at experts in the subject for selection, including a retired High Court Judge as its Chairman and they were men of high status and also of unquestionable impartiality. Therefore, the Court should be slow to interfere with their opinion. In this connection reference can be made to the case of National institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences V/s. K. K. Raman, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1806 . 21. In the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that no reason has been assigned while selecting respondent No. 5 and rejecting the case of the petitioners, in my opinion, there is no force in it. It is settled by the apex Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, AIR 1992 SC 1806 (supra), that the Selection Committee takes interview of the candidates, makes statement of their relative merits and recommends a panel of names for appointment and the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is settled by the apex Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, AIR 1992 SC 1806 (supra), that the Selection Committee takes interview of the candidates, makes statement of their relative merits and recommends a panel of names for appointment and the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is purely administrative and there is no rule or regulation which requires the Selection Committee to record reasons and in absence of any such legal requirement, the selection made without recording reasons cannot be found fault with. 22. For the reasons aforementioned, I find no merit in these two writ applications, which are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. Q