IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8221 of 2011 Lalita Kumari, wife of Krishnadev Rajak, R/o Bhavanipur South, P.S. Pratapganj, District Supaul. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, Government of Bihar New Delhi 2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020. 3. The Senior Regional Manager, Patna L.P.G. Range, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road Chowk, Patna- 800001. … Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagnnath Singh, Advocate For the H.P.C.L. : Dr. Pankaj, Advocate -------- 04/ 12.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure 3), by which Senior Regional Manager, L.P.G. Range, Patna (respondent no.3) rejected the candidature and selection of the petitioner as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak (hereinafter referred to as ` RGGLV’ for the sake of brevity) for location Pratapganj in the district of Supaul under schedule caste category without any show cause and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in a most arbitrary manner. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, from which also it is quite apparent that the impugned letter had been issued without giving the petitioner 2 any opportunity to place her case although she had specifically claimed that she was resident of village Bhavanipur in Pratapganj Block, District Supaul and it was also proved by the evidences produced by her. 4. In the said circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the Sr. Regional Manager is hereby quashed. 5. The matter does not end here as from the advertisement dated 17.10.2009 (Annexure 5) it is quite apparent that at serial no.140 the advertised location is Pratapganj under scheduled caste category and at the top of the said column it is mentioned as town/village. In view of the documents on record, it cannot be validly disputed that Pratapganj is not a notified village or town, rather it is a Block, under which Bhawanipur Mauza is situated. Hence when Pratapganj is not a revenue village, the said advertisement with respect to Pratapganj is not valid and proper as it should have been in the name of revenue village Bhavanipur. 6. It transpires that in the above circumstances, authorities have rightly cancelled the said advertisement with respect to Pratapganj and have issued a fresh advertisement with regard to Pratapganj Bhavanipur specifying the revenue village. Thus it is quite apparent that the entire advertisement, on the basis of which the petitioner had applied, having been cancelled, the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the 3 quashing of order dated 18.10.2010 and she will have to apply afresh on the basis of the fresh advertisement if she is entitled to as per the said advertisement. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any clause of the said advertisement, she can raise dispute before the authorities concerned. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )