IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8642 of 2010 SHARMILA DEVI @SHARMILA KUMARI W/O PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA S/O RAMJIVAN SHARMA R/O VILL & PO PAKARI BARAWAN PS- PAKARI BARWAN DISTT- NAWADAH-PETITIONER Versus 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR BHARAT BHAWAN 4 &6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD BALLARD ESTATE POST BOX NO. 688 MUMBAI-40001 2. TERRITORY MANAGER BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED FATUHA INDUSTRIAL AREA PO & PS-FATUHA DISTT- PATNA 3. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O KRISHNA PRASAD R/O VILL & PO PAKARI BARAWAN DISTT- NAWADAH, BIHAR----------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 17.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner was one of the candidates for being considered for appointment of Rural LPG Distributorship under what is known as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG VITRAK. The location in question is supposed to be Pakari Barawan in the district of Nawadah. There were many candidates and draw of lots had to be held amongst the eligible candidates. Before the draw of lots the petitioner was given a letter pointing out certain infirmity in her application. The communication is dated 15.3.2010 and is annexure-3 to the writ application. The clarification sought by the Company related to two issues (1) that the petitioner did not own land in the advertised location and (2) she was not resident of advertised location. Petitioner responded to the Company on both counts and offered her explanation. It seems the company has given up objection with regard to residence but so far land is concerned they stuck to the initial objection that the land was not owned by the petitioner in - 2 - the advertised location. This decision is under challenge in the present writ application stating it to be arbitrary, irrational and detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. Learned counsel representing the Oil Corporation has drawn the attention of this Court to the clause of the notice inviting applications for selection. There is clear a stipulation that the land has to be owned by the candidate or the ‘family unit’. ‘Family unit’ has been described as in case of a married women to be self, husband, unmarried son and or unmarried daughter. The so called land offered by the petitioner is supposed to be leased land existing in the name of father-in-law. Therefore as per the respondents the land does not belong to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that husband of the petitioner is the only son of the father- in-law. The land belongs to father-in-law and by inheritance it will accrue to him. It is misplaced objection that the land does not belong to her within the definition of family. The selection in question will have to be tested in terms of the advertisement and the clauses laid down therein. The interpretation of Hindu law is not going to lay the foundation for deciding the action of the respondents. The petitioner was an applicant on existing terms and conditions of the advertisement and if the terms and conditions had not been fulfilled then the consequence of the kind will follow. - 3 - Petitioner has failed to make out a case for arbitrariness. The decision seems to be inconformity with the terms and conditions of the advertisement. No illegality is found in the decision. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)