IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1834 of 2008 Between: I. Manjula, W/o. G.L. Narasimham, R/o. Chitti Gudur Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Seniro Regional Manager, Vijayawada Region, Industrial Development Area, Kondapalli, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Hari Prasad Nagesh Pitchiraju Mavuleti, S/o. Somaraju, R/o. Chennuru Post & Village, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in appointing the 2nd respondent as L.P.G. Distributorship for Guduru Mandal, Krishna District in pursuance of notiﬁcation dated 1-10-2007 published in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper and without assessing the relative merit of the Petitioner with the 2nd Respondent, is illegal, arbitrary and violatin of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the case of the Petitioner and assess the relatie merit along with 2nd respondent for appointment of L.P.G. Distributorship for Guduru Mandal, Krishna District, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR KMURALI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.1834 of 2008 ORDER This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in appointing the 2nd respondent as LPG Distributor for Gudur Mandal, Krishna District as arbitrary and illegal. The 1st respondent-Corporation along with two other Corporations namely, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation issued a notiﬁcation dated.01-10- 2007 in local dailies calling for application for appointment of LPG Distributors in various places including Gudur Mandal, Krishna District which was notiﬁed by the 1st respondent- Corporation (HPCL) at Serial No.35 of the notiﬁcation. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied and she was called upon to appear before the selection committee for the interview scheduled on 29-01-2008 in the Regional Oﬃce of the 1st respondent-Corporation at Kondapalli. Accordingly the petitioner attended the interview on 29-01-2008. However, the selection committee having raised an objection that in the sworn aﬃdavit the petitioner had mentioned the name of Bharat Petroleum Corporation instead of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, disqualiﬁed the petitioner on that ground. The list of empanelled candidates for distributorship of the 1st respondent- Corporation which was displayed by the 1st respondent Corporation on 29-01-2008 revealed that the 2nd respondent herein secured highest marks among the candidates appeared and that the writ petitioner was disqualiﬁed on the ground that the aﬃdavit was not for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is ﬁled contending inter alia that the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s case at the threshold on the ground of a typographical mistake in the aﬃdavit which is only a curable defect and does not eﬀect the eligibility criteria in any manner what-so-ever is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that since the petitioner satisﬁed all the requirements speciﬁed in the notiﬁcation and is fully eligible to be appointed as LPG Distributor rejection of her case without considering the merits is unwarranted. On behalf of the 1st respondent-Corporation a counter- aﬃdavit is ﬁled stating that since the petitioner was disqualiﬁed, the question of comparing her relative merit with the 2nd respondent does not arise. It is also stated that in view of the clear instructions given in the notiﬁcation with regard to submission of various documents, the petitioner should have been diligent and the Corporation cannot be expected to get the mistake corrected by informing the petitioner. The 2nd respondent while ﬁling a separate counter- aﬃdavit on the same lines further contended that having been selected after a full ﬂedged selection process he cannot be deprived of his legitimate right to be appointed as a dealer. I have heard the learned counsel for the both parties and perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that in the document (notarized aﬃdavit) submitted by the petitioner along with her application there was a mistake and on that ground she was disqualiﬁed by the 1st respondent-Corporation. Whether the mistake in the document furnished by the petitioner is a bonaﬁde mistake and whether it is curable are not relevant and the 1st respondent Corporation cannot be found fault with for not giving an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the same. Once it is admitted that the petitioner’s application is not in conformity with the instructions in the notiﬁcation, the same is rendered invalid and consequently it does not deserve consideration on merits. In view of the said admitted fact, which rendered the petitioner’s application invalid it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the selection of the 2nd respondent following due process. Hence the impugned action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. 7T H November, 2008 *TSNR