JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. The challenge is made to the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge whereby writ petitioners seeking directions for allotment of the residential plots in the category of journalists has been dismissed. 3. Though, learned counsel for the appellants sought to canvass through his argument that 81 plots in respect of which advertisement has been issued ought to be considered for allotment to journalists, we find that the Scheme on the basis of which such claim is being made was formulated and included way-back in the year 2003 and under the Scheme, the writ petitioners, at the time when that Scheme was floated, were not eligible. 4. The Scheme was for allotment of residential plots to journalists. 5. Presently, the advertisement which has been issued is in respect of commercial plots. Therefore, on the basis of the existing allotment Scheme, we do not find that the appellants have any claim. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, brought to the notice of this Court a circular dated 19.12.2002 of the State Government by which the State Government granted approval for allotment of residential plots to journalists. 7. Taking into consideration that in the past State Government had permitted the local bodies to reserve certain plots on concessional schemes, which were once floated also in the year 2003, the appellants may represent the State Government for earmarking more residential plots in future. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Ld. Single Judge. 8. Subject to the liberty to prefer representation, the appeal stands dismissed. It is made clear that the order of Ld. Single Judge will not come in the way of the appellants preferring representation to the State Government.