Judgment 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 2. The writ petitioners-appellants have participated in a tender for supply of certain articles to the Government Department in response to tender Notice in 2004 but after about 8 months, the order of supply was granted in favour of someone else (Respondent No. 7), who had not responded to the tender floated in 2004, which led to filing of a writ petition before this Court being CWJC No. 4543/2005 challenging the allotment of work given to a stranger without considering the tender submitted in response to tender notice. 3. Realizing the mistake committed by the Government, the supply order offered to a stranger was cancelled. However, in the process the tender notice of 2004 itself was cancelled and fresh tenders were floated. The petitioners had submitted fresh tender in pursuance of new tender notice with a request that security deposit deposited by him alongwith earlier tender be adjusted against security deposit required for fresh tender. 4. Considering these aspects, on 18.5.2006 the aforesaid writ petition was I dismissed as having become infructuous leaving the departmental authorities free to proceed in the matter in terms of the current policy for procurement of articles in question. 5. The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the instructions issued by the Chief Secretary vide Annexure-8 dated 11.4.2006 to all the District Officers informing them about the guidelines for implementing the projects in the field of children welfare emphasizing that, as per State policy, those projects including the 139 projects approved by the Central Government, all such projects are to be implemented expeditiously and, for expeditious implementation, the Government has taken certain decisions which include decentralization of purchase from Divisional level to District level, and with this premise, the guidelines have been issued for the District Administration to be followed in supersession of the earlier instructions issued in that regard. 6. The petitioners, who had only a right to be considered for any Government largesse, which was to be offered and right in that regard has not been impaired. Yet the petitioners have challenged the issuance of the order dated 11.4.2006 being contrary to the earlier Government decision of making purchase at Divisional level and not at the District level for the purpose of implementation of children welfare and social welfare schemes. Yet the petitioners have challenged the issuance of the order dated 11.4.2006 being contrary to the earlier Government decision of making purchase at Divisional level and not at the District level for the purpose of implementation of children welfare and social welfare schemes. The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge noticing that the petitioners have already submitted a tender and they having participated, their tender will be considered on its own merit, in case the petitioners are found eligible. However, the learned Single Judge found no merit in the contention about the validity of the instructions issued to the District authorities by the Chief Secretary only on the ground that the Chief Secretary had no authority to wander a Government order. 7. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge. The petitioners having no vested right or otherwise any right for entering into a contract with the Government for requisite purchase except to be considered for such contracts and that right having been not affected, the petitioners cannot have a right in the forum which will consider the tender applications. 8. This apart, it is evident from the reading of the letter (Annexure-8) in its entirety that this has been a communication of the Government decision only, and not a personal decision of the Chief Secretary de hors Government decision. 9. The appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.