IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16842 of 2010 RINKEE BHAGAT, WIFE OF SRI SANDIP KUMAR BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF 282, BEKAPUR, MUNGER, P.S. KITWALI, DISTRICT MUNGER-PETITIONER Versus 1.THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE OFFICE 3079/3 J.P.T.I.T.U. MARG, SADIQUE NAGAR, NEW DELHI- 110049 2.THE GENERAL MANAGER (HEAD QUARTER) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-51 3.THE REGIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA-1 4.THE AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (M.D.) INDANE AREA OFFICE, BEGUSARAI, P.O. BARAUNI OIL REFINERY, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI (BIHAR)----------------------------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh-2, Advocate For the I.O.C. :M/S K.D.Chatterji,Amlesh Kr.Verma, Advocates ----- 2. 06.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner seeks quashing of the merit list dated 28.8.2010 alleging that manipulation has been committed by the respondents who adopted pick and choose policy in the selection process for appointment of L.P.G. distributorship under open category reserved for women and for further consequential directions. The petitioner applied for L.P.G. distributorship pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.1.2009 published in daily English newspaper. She was called for interview but 2 when she downloaded the result from the web-site of the Indian Oil Corporation she found that she was not eligible due to non-production of the original document. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted her original documents at the time of interview before the selection of the distributorship but subsequently the respondents in any way managed to succeed in selection of another person as the first candidate. From a consideration of the merit list I find that as many as 53 persons figure in the said list and the details of the marks secured with respect to all of them are to be found excluding those who were absent during the interview. Considering the huge panel and the details with respect to each of the candidates having been mentioned in the merit list it is difficult to believe the contention of the petitioner that deliberately she has been left out and manipulation has been committed by the respondent authorities. No specific allegation of malice against the petitioner is to be found in the writ application. The charge must accordingly fail. 3 It is evident from a consideration of the writ petition that the petitioner has not even understood the ground on which her candidature has been rejected. It is clearly stated in the merit list that she was found not eligible due to non- production of the original age-proof document, whereas no such statement with respect to specific age-proof document having been produced in original is to be found out in the writ petition. This shows the negligence on the part of the petitioner. This Court does not find any reason why the respondent authorities will disqualify the petitioner on the ground of non-production of age-proof document when as many as nearly four dozen candidates have not been disqualified. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal