IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12073 of 2009 SMT.RATNESHWARI DEVI, wife of Late Thakur Ramapati Singh, Resident of Mohalla Chandmari Town- Motihari, District- East Champaran :-- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai. 3. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Bihar State Office, Loknayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna. 4. The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Eastern Region Indiane Area Office, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna :--- Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the I.O.C. :-M/S K.D.Chatterji & A.K.Verma, Advocates. For the Union of India : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan (CGC) 03. 05.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Union of India and the counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2. Petitioner was an applicant for appointment as distributor for L.P.G. at Bettiah, West Champaran pursuant to advertisement published in Hindustan newspaper dated 19.1.2009, Annexure-1. It is evident from Annexure-1 that applications were invited from Freedom Fighter (W) and petitioner being the widow of a freedom fighter applied but her candidature along with others was rejected by the interview board observing that no eligible candidate appeared for interview. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being the widow of a freedom fighter was eligible to apply. 3. Learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. clarified that freedom fighter (W) meant women not widow and submitted that as petitioner was not herself a freedom fighter, her candidature along with others was rejected observing that no eligible candidate appeared for interview. - 2 - 4. I do not find any illegality in the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, as (w) in the advertisement, although not clarified meant women. Appreciating such fact if the candidature of the petitioner and others have been rejected, I do not see any illegality in the rejection of the candidature of petitioner. In this connection learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 2000(4) PLJR 585 where learned Single Judge of this Court considered the term freedom fighter (W) and held that the woman applicant should be herself a freedom fighter and not the widow of the freedom fighter. Being in respectful agreement with the aforesaid judgment, this Court has no option but to dismiss this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha, J.)