IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12493 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 19th July, 2010. Parvesh Puhal Petitioner through Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner applied for the grant of LPG Distributorship at Rewari by respondent No. 2 – Indian Oil Corporation. The Distributorship was reserved for Scheduled Caste Category. On the basis of the petitioner's profile, academic qualifications and the alleged experience, he was placed at Sr. No. 1 by the Selection Committee, subject to verification/authentication of his claim. On the basis of subsequent fact finding inquiry, it was found that there is over-lapping with the petitioner's experience as Manager of Panipat Gas Agency, Panipat on the one hand and his status as a law student in the Gurukul College of Law, Gurukul Tiraha, near Collectorate, Datia, Madhya Pradesh. Suffice it to mention here that while the petitioner is said to have worked as Manager of the Panipat Gas Agency from 1999 to 2004, he was also a law student in the afore-stated college of law from October, 2003 till the completion of the degree in the year 2006. On account of the afore-stated over-lapping, the candidature of the petitioner has now been cancelled vide the impugned order. The petitioner asserts that he has a valid and justified explanation to offer that there was no over-lapping between his working as Manager at Panipat or pursuing his law degree in Madhya Pradesh. If that is so, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a representation to respondent No. 2 along with the relevant material in support of his contention raised. It is stated that a self-speaking representation to that effect has already been submitted by him on 22.6.2010 [Annexure P- 8]. In this view of the matter and without expressing any views with regard to eligibility of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 and/or any other Competent Authority to re-consider the petitioner's contention regarding his eligibility and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Further allotment of the LPG Distributorship shall be without prejudice to the petitioner's rights. Disposed of. Dasti. July 19, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE