JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The Petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short, 'the Constitution') challenges the action of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 in not selecting and appointing him as the Storage Agent for Rajnagar Block in Kendrapara district for the year 1999-2000 and in selecting and appointing opposite party Nos. 4 to 6, on the allegation that the same has not been done in a fair manner but done on political influence. He prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing opposite party No. 2 to appoint him as the Storage Agent for the block in question. 2. Briefly stated the case of the Petitioner is that since 1985-86 the Petitioner was continuing as a Storage Agent for the block in question till May, 1999. For smooth distribution of essential commodities under the Public Distribution System, the Petitioner, who initially opened a depot at Chandbali during the year 1988 on the demand of the retail dealers, local people and on the direction of opposite party No. 3, constructed a pucca godown in village Talchua by investing a huge sum of money and since then the depot is functioning in that place, which is situated within Rajnagar Block. The Petitioner further states that he is having a vast.experience in the business and quite acquainted with the geographical situation of Rajnagar block. Pursuant to the notice issued by opposite party No. 2 inviting applications for appointment of Storage Agents for different block and urban areas in the State, the Petitioner submitted his application on 23.3-1999 to opposite party No. 3 and a copy thereof to opposite party No. 2 by registered post enclosing therewith the requisite documents in respect of Rajnagar block for the year 1999-2000. On receipt of such applications, opposite party No. 3 recommended the case of the Petitioner along with three others. The recommendation of opposite party No. 3 was also coupled with the recommendation of the local M.L.A. in favour of the Petitioner for his continuance during the year 1999-2000. The Petitioner further states that since 1985 86 till end of May, 1999,there was no complaint or allegation either from any dealer or local public regarding his functioning as a Storage Agent. The Petitioner further states that since 1985 86 till end of May, 1999,there was no complaint or allegation either from any dealer or local public regarding his functioning as a Storage Agent. It is further stated that though the term of the 'petitioner's appointment for the year 1998-99 had expired on 31-3-1999; opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 extended the same till 31st May, 1999. The allegation of the Petitioner is that though opposite party No. 3 after causing necessary enquiry recommended his case along with three others for appointment as Storage Agents, opposite party No. 2 without assigning any reason has rejected his case and appointed opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 as the Storage Agents for Rajnagar block for 1999-2000. The Petitioner further states that his case is totally within the purview of the Guidelines framed by opposite party No. 2 for appointment of Storage Agents for the year 1999-2000 vide Annexure-2. The Petitioner further.alleges that the appointments of opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 are illegal because they are not eligible for the same. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 justifying the rejection of the Petitioner's case. Shri S. Misra (2), learned Counsel for the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (in short, the Corporation') and its officials has urged, that the writ petition is not maintainable because the Petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim to be appointed as Storage Agent for the subsequent year. That apart, the learned Counsel has contended that the scope of judicial review of administrative action/decision is very limited and no such right has accrued to the Petitioner which has been infringed so as to require this Court to interfere in its extraordinary "jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel has submitted that these are the contractual rights and it is the prerogative of the Corporation to appoint or reject the application of an applicant, The Petitioner has got no justiciable right to approach this Court. Learned Counsel has submitted that these are the contractual rights and it is the prerogative of the Corporation to appoint or reject the application of an applicant, The Petitioner has got no justiciable right to approach this Court. In the counter affidavit, the opposite parties have further stated that the Petitioner was appointed for the year 1998-99 and on expiry of the term on 31st March, 1999, as there was some delay in processing the appointment for the year 1999-2000, two separate monthly agreements for April and May, 1999 were executed with the Petitioner in order to avoid any disruption in public distribution system. The last such supplementary agreement expired on 31st May, 1999. It is admitted by opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 that the application of the Petitioner was recommended by the Collector, Kendrapara, along with the applications of opposite party Nos. 4, to 6, for the block in question for 1999-2000. All these applications were placed before a Sub-Committee constituted for selection of Storage Agents and the said Sub-Committee after due consideration, selected opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 for appointment as Storage Agents for Rajnagar block for 1999-2000. Thereafter agreements, have already been executed by opposite party Nos. A to 6 and they are functioning since the dates of execution of the agreements, i. e., 10-6-1999 and 11-6-1999. 4. The main plank of the argument of Shri Misra is that the rejection of the application of the Petitioner is due to the reason that the Petitioner is not a resident of Kendrapara district and that he belongs to Chandbali in Bhadrak district. Therefore, opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 being the local residents, have been appointed as Storage Agents, This has been done in accordance with.the Rules for selecting Storage Agents laid down in the proceeding of the meeting of the Sub-Committee for finalising the selection of Storage Agents for 1999-2000 and keeping in view the convenience of the general public. 5. During the course of his argument, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Sailendra Kumar Meher Vs. State of Orissa and Others and another decision of the Apex Court in Krishnan Kakkanth Vs. Government of Kerala and ohters, . 6. 5. During the course of his argument, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Sailendra Kumar Meher Vs. State of Orissa and Others and another decision of the Apex Court in Krishnan Kakkanth Vs. Government of Kerala and ohters, . 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at length after going through the relevant files produced before us by the learned Counsel for the Corporation, it is crystal clear that the case of the Petitioner has been rejected because of the reason that he does not belong to the concerned area or the nearby area but belongs to another area in the district of Bhadrak. There is no convincing reply given in the counter affidavit regarding the continuance of the Petitioner as Storage Agent since 1985-86 till May, 1999, even though he belongs to a different district and he does not belong to the concerned area. That apart, learned Counsel for the opposite parties fails to indicate that there is any default on the part of the Petitioner or any allegation from any quarter made against him during his long continuance as a Storage Agent. Hence, relying on the decision in Krishnan Kakkanth' (supra), the Petitioner contends that the restriction that only the people of the local area eligible to be appointed is unreasonable. Hence the action of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in rejecting the Petitioner's application on that ground is bad and illegal. The Petitioner has also stated that in view of the decision in Sailendra Kumar Meher (supra), where fair play is an essential ingredient in accepting and awarding a contract and if the decision of the authority lacks in fair play and taken in an irrational manner this Court is not powerless to interfere in the decision taken by the administrative authorities. 7. In the present case, the decision of the authorities in excluding the outsider, in our view, has been taken considering the convenience of the general public and the local people. Hence there is no irrationality or illegality attached to the said decision. It is fairly accepted by learned Counsel for opposite parties that requirement of local residence can be relaxed by the Collector' by giving reasons in writing. It appears that Collector recommended Petitioner's case. Hence there is no irrationality or illegality attached to the said decision. It is fairly accepted by learned Counsel for opposite parties that requirement of local residence can be relaxed by the Collector' by giving reasons in writing. It appears that Collector recommended Petitioner's case. It is not disputed that the Petitioner was continuing since very long and has spent considerable amount for constructing the depot and as there was no allegation or complaint from any quarter against the Petitioner during his long incumbancy as a Storage Agent.for the block and particularly when opposite party No. 2 and 3 have allowed him to continue till end of May. 1999 the Petitioner has some legitimate expectation from the opposite parties. Taking all these aspects into consideration, while not interfering with the appointments of opposite party Nos. 4 to 6, we direct opposite party Nos. I, and 3 to allow the Petitioner to continue as the Storage Agent for the block in question till end of March. 2000. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. A. Pasayat, A.C.J. 9. I agree. 10. Writ petition disposed of.