IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4871 of 2009 RANI DEVI, wife of late Soldier Manoj Kumar, resident of Village -+ P.O. + P.S. – Mainatand, District – West Champaran. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Department of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi. 2. The Director General (Resettlement), Government of India, West Block IV, R K Puram, New Delhi. 3. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mumbai. 4. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Bihar State Office, Loknayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk. Patna. 5. The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Eastern Region, Indane Area office, Patna, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna. ---- For the petitioner : Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashank Shekher. For the I.O.C.L. : Mr. K D Chatterji & Amlesh Kumar Verma. For respondent No..6 : Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh. ------ 07. 16.02.2010 There were two grounds of challenge made by the petitioner against the selection of private respondent No.6 to turn down with a first empanelled candidate in matter of selection of a dealer of retail outlet for Indane Gas Distributorship at Raxaul. The first ground was that respondent No.6 is not a war widow because husband of respondent No.6 died in a road accident and not in a war. The second attack was with regard to the qualification which respondent No.6 held, which was alleged to be bogus, fraudulent, if any, invalid as not recognized. Since both these questions relate to question of facts and not question of law, respondents, 2 official as well as private, were directed to file their counter affidavit. On the question of award of marks to the private respondent in the category of a war widow the Oil Company inquired into the matter, sought clarification from the Director General of Rehabilitation and it emerged that the private respondent had been awarded more marks on a misplaced kind of categorization than she was entitled. Her entitlement was not denied but the categorization had to be de-scaled. By virtue of said downgrading the respondent No.6 lost 16 marks but this did not alter her position in the panel as she remained empanelled on first position. Though the infirmity pointed out by the petitioner turned down to be true but it is not fatal to the selection of the private respondent. The other challenge that the private respondent did not have a requisite qualification or that the matriculation certificate was bogus, has been successfully answered by the private respondent in the counter affidavit which has been filed on her behalf. She has annexed all the documents which are required in this regard including certain notifications which accept that her certificate of Vidya Vinodini issued by the Prayag Mahila Vidyapith, Allahabad is a recognized degree at par with matriculation. Both the grounds for assailing the 3 selection of respondent No.6 therefore fail. No interference is warranted in the writ application. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )