CWP No.8370 of 1988 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8370 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.12.2011 Harmesh Kumar son of Shri Parkash Chand, resident of Talwandi Road, Raikot, District Ludhiana and another. ... Petitioners Versus The Indian Oil Corporation, New Delhi, through its General Manager and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:None for the petitioners. Mr. Mahipal Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. The counsel for the respondent-Corporation states that the challenge to an allotment to the private respondent was made by the petitioner on the ground that the selected candidate was not unemployed in the manner required under the notification and that further the petitioners were not the residents of the same village where the petrol outlet was sought to be commissioned, while the private respondent belonging to some other village. 2. The counsel for the respondent-Corporation points out that the advertisement itself provides that a person could be a part time employee and it was not necessary that eligible CWP No.8370 of 1988 (O&M) [2] candidate must have been wholly unemployed. I have noticed the terms and conditions of allotment, which reads thus: “i) should have remained unemployed at least for one year before the date of application for being considered. Candidates who are employed in the jobs which are not regular/not likely to become permanent or continue would be considered eligible. Self-employed candidate can also apply.” The above condition clearly spells out that a person, who has not a regular job, or who is not likely to become permanent shall also be eligible. Therefore, the issue taken by the petitioners that the private respondent was not eligible is not correct. 3. As regards the other contention that the private respondent was not a resident of the same village, it is pointed out in defence that the preference for a resident of the same village would arise only if more than one candidate was tied at the same rank. In this case, the 4th respondent was said to have been placed at No.1 in the relative grading, while the petitioners were not even short-listed. I find, therefore, the objection regarding the residential status also cannot be taken in favour of the petitioners. 4. The counsel for the respondent-Corporation states that the petrol outlet had been commissioned in the year 1989 and even apart from the consideration on merits, it would be wholly inexigent to cause any obstruction to the allotment at this length of time. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. DECEMBER 08, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE