CWP 867 of 2003. 25.4.2008 Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. 1. Mr. K.D.Sood, counsel for respondent No. 2. Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Romesh Verma, counsel for respondent No. 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the allotment of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Distributorship to respondent No. 3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that according to the advertisement Annexure P-1, preference is to be given to widows and those women whose parents are not earning enough money. Condition No. 4 reads as follows: “Other conditions being equal preference will be given to unmarried women of more than 40 years of age whose parents are not earning members and the widows. (For places reserved for women only).” The record of selection was called for at the time of hearing. I find from the record that respondent No. 3 has been placed way ahead of the petitioner in all the parameters under which marks have been awarded to the competing candidates. In these circumstances, it -2- cannot be said that selection of respondent No. 3 is either arbitrary or against law. Preference has to be given where the other factors are equal and not when there is a yawning difference between the abilities and capabilities of two candidates. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. April 25, 2008(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.