sk 1 wp2583.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2583 OF 2011 Shri Anil N. Havale : Petitioner V/s. The Union of India & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.Shiva Patil for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.2. Mr.Hemant Prabhulkar i/b. M/s.Juris Consultus for resp. nos.3 & 4. .... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 29, 2011. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of his application for L.P.G. distributorship at Solapur. Initially, the petitioner had applied for distributorship which was granted to some other persons. The said grant was, however, set aside in pursuance of the judgement of the Supreme sk 2 wp2583.11 Court in which large scale irregularities were found by judgement dated 7.11.2008 in Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of India (2008) 15 SCC 243). In particular, it was found that the distributorship at Solapur was wrongly granted to one Milind Deshpande vide judgement and order made subsequently in Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of India dated 7.11.2008. According to the petitioner, he was ranked as number two in the panel after Deshpande whose dealership was found to be illegal and, therefore, cancelled. It is the petitioner’s contention that he ought to have been automatically granted the dealership after the cancellation of Deshpande’s dealership. This contention cannot be upheld in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & Anr. v. Ramesh Chand Trivedi in Civil Appeal No.8586 of 2010 decided on 4.10.2010 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- “If a comparative assessment made by a selection Board is vitiated, and the appellants decided to scrap the entire panel and readvertise the distributorship, the decision is not open to question. It cannot be contended that when the allotment in favour of the first person in the panel sk 3 wp2583.11 is set aside, the distributorship should automatically be allotted to the eligible applicant who is shown as second in the panel. Where the allotment was cancelled on account of irregularity in selection and preparation of panel, the decision to have a fresh selection instead of using the panel which was found to be vitiated, does not call for interference by courts.” Therefore, the decision of the respondents to cancel the dealership and issue fresh advertisement cannot be faulted with particularly since they have stated in their communication dated 10.3.2009 to the petitioner as follows:- “As per the selection policy, merit panel is valid upto one year from the date of commissioning of Indane distributorship. As M/s.Solapur Indane, Solapur was commissioned in 2002 and terminated in 2008, the time lapse is more than six years, and as such merit panel is not valid. The location `Solapur’ will be advertised in the next sk 4 wp2583.11 advertisement.” It was, however, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the fresh election, his candidature has been illegally rejected on the ground that he is not a graduate and that he is above the age of 45 years. The learned counsel for the respondents has rightly relied on the guidelines. Guideline 7.1 at page 133 reads as follows:- “7.1 Common Eligibility Criteria for all Categories applying as individual The applicant should i. Be an Indian citizen and be a resident of India. ii. Have minimum any one of the following educational qualification awarded by any of the Universities incorporated by an Act of the Central or State Legislature in India or any other educational institutions established by an Act of Parliament or declared to be deemed as a University under the UGC Act, sk 5 wp2583.11 1956, or possess an equivalent qualification recognized by the Ministry of HRD, Government of India as on the date of application: a) Graduation in any field b) Chartered Accountant c) Company Secretary d) Cost Accountant e) Diploma in Engineering. iii. Be not less than 21 years of age and not more than 45 years of age as on the date of application for all categories except GP category.” 3. It is thus clear that graduation and upper ceiling of 45 years of age is one of the requirements. There is thus no merit in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. (S.A. BOBDE, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)