IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5621 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MOLAMMA C.K., PUTHUPPURAYIDATHIL, MUKKOOTTUTHARA P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR. J.OM PRAKASH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE HINDUSTHAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUMBAI. 2. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTHAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., TATAPURAM, ERNAKULAM. 3. SAJIKUMAR, KOLEDATH HOUSE, CHIRAKKADAVAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM. 4. SMT.LIJA VIJAYAN, L.D.C., NEDUMKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.P.GOPINATH, MR.V.J.ANAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 5621 of 2010-C - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an applicant for award of the Retail Outlet Dealership at Ettumanoor under the Scheduled Caste category. After the interview, going by the rank, the petitioner is the third, whereas respondents 3 and 4 are rank Nos.1 and 2 respectively. 2. According to the petitioner, they are not entitled to get rank Nos.1 and 2, as the third respondent has already got first rank in the list published for the Eramalloor Petrol outlet and the 4th respondent is employed as a Government servant. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation before the second respondent which was rejected as per Ext.P3. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is entitled for preference as the daughter of a freedom fighter. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out therein that even though the third respondent has already been empanelled for location ‘Eramalloor’, there is no prohibition in Ext.R2(a) wpc 5621/2010 2 notification against a candidate applying for and participating for selection in two different locations. This is evident from clause 13(h) of Ext.R2(a). It is up to the said candidate to choose between the locations for which he is empanelled and letter of intent would be issued only for one location chosen by him. The third respondent was empanelled for Ettumanoor in Kottayam District and Eramallore in Alappuzha District and he had submitted Ext.R2(c) notarized affidavit stating that he would like to have his dealership at Ettumanoor in Kottayam District and that he may be issued with the Letter of Intent for that location. Accordingly, by Ext.R2(d) the Letter of Intent has been issued. 4. With regard to the fourth respondent also, it is explained that being a Government there is no prohibition in submitting application, but once she is empanelled and selected for award of the outlet, she will have to resign from the job and then only the appointment will be given. Now, as the third respondent was already issued the Letter of Intent, the said issue is only academic. In the above view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for rank No.1, evidently. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. wpc 5621/2010 3 (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/