IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9708 of 2010 Dhananjay Kumar Singh S/O Sri Mithilesh Kumar Singh R/O Vill & P.O.Jhahangirpur Kothia, P.S.Khanpur, Distt-Samastipur .. Petitioner Versus 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , Through Senior Regional Manager Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th Floor, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna-800001 2. The Deputy General Manager , North Central Zone, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Plot No.1, Nehru Enclave, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow-226010(Uttar Pradesh) 3. The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Patna Region , Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th Floor, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna-800001 … Respondents ------------ For the petitioner : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rabindra Nath Kanth, Advocate ----------- 03/ 08.08.2011 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 10.05.2010 (Annexure 11), by which the Sr. Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Patna (respondent no.3) granted `0’ (zero) marks to the petitioner in the interview and also for a direction to the authorities to re- interview the empanelled candidates prepared for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealer for the Petrol Pump at the advertised location i.e. Elmasnagar on Samastipur-Baheri Road in the Open Category in the district of Samastipur, for which an advertisement was published on 20.06.2009 in the daily news paper Hindustan. 3. From the averments of learned counsel the parties as well as from the materials on record, it transpires that in the original list one Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary was at serial no. 1, 2 whereas, one Md. Zahid Khan was at serial no. 2 and petitioner Dhananjay Kumar Singh was at serial no.3. It further transpires that several allegations were raised by the petitioner against the empanelled candidate Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary, which were found to be correct and, thereafter, the name of Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary was deleted from the panel vide order dated 30.04.2010. However, it was also found in the said order dated 30.04.2010 that `0’ (zero) marks, awarded to the petitioner by the Evaluation Committee under head `land’, was also correct. Hence, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 4. It further transpires that there was another observation in the said order dated 30.04.2010, by which the merit panel was decided to be cancelled and re-interview was directed to be conducted in line with the guidelines. Thereafter, a fresh interview was held during the pendency of this writ petition, in which the petitioner also appeared and, a new panel dated 12.08.2010 was prepared, wherein the petitioner was third in position and had received `0’ (zero) marks by the Interview Committee in the column `Capacity to provide infrastructure and facility’, whereas, Zahid Khan and Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary were placed at the first and second positions, respectively. 5. From the advertisement it is quite apparent that the advertised location was Elmasnagar, whereas, the petitioner claimed that the revenue village was Reni and its Tola was named as Elmasnagar and his land falling within revenue village Reni 3 should have been considered as fulfilling the criteria. However, no revenue record or certificate of the revenue authorities have been produced by the petitioner to support his contention. In any view of the matter, the advertised location was Elmasnagar and not Reni, whereas admittedly petitioner’s offered land is not situated within the location Elmasnagar. Hence his claim has been rightly rejected by the authority concerned. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N.Hussain, J. )