HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.14545 of 2009 Date: 3.3.2010 Between: Mr. Sandi Reddy Kondala Rao and another. Petitioners. And Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai and others. .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.14545 of 2009 ORDER: Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the 1st respondent herein published a notification on 1.10.2007 inviting applications for selection of candidates for LPG dealership at various places including Addanki of Prakasam District. The petitioners constituted themselves into a partnership and submitted applications. The third respondent and several others have also applied for evaluation in two stages. The first phase is by a Committee at Level-I and the evaluation would be for 89 marks. The second phase evaluation is for 11 marks. The case of the petitioners was not considered at Level-II on the ground that they did not furnish proper proof of their dates of birth. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. Heard Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. Raghunandan, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Paravasthu Krishna, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The petitioners faced a stumbling block only at Level-II. They were evaluated at Level-I. The particulars furnished by the respondents disclose that out of 89 marks, they were awarded in common, 82.7 marks whereas the third respondent secured 89 marks. In the further evaluation at Level-II, the third respondent was awarded 10.67 marks as against 11. Even if the petitioners were to have been awarded full 11 marks at Level-II, they would not stand to selection and would lag behind the third respondent almost by two marks. In between, there is another candidate who is accorded the second place. Therefore, the necessity for this Court to decide as to whether the stand taken by the respondents 1 and 2 as regards the proof of the date of birth of the petitioners does not arise. That question is reserved to be dealt with in a proper occasion. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J DATE: 3.3.2010 pnb