IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 25968 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUREKHA.S,SUDARSHANA,POST CHOMBALA, TAL-VADAKARA,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., BOMBAY REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER LPG(SZ), HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION,CHENNAI. 3. THE SENIOR MANAGER, LPG SALES (SZ), THALAMUTHU NATARAJAN BUILDING,1,GANDHIU-IRWIN ROAD P.B.NO.3045,EGMORE,CHENNAI-600 008. 4. THE CO-ORDINATOR, HPC LIMITED MANGALORE LPG R.O. 5. DR.DEEPTHI.P, EXCELLENT DENTIST CLINIC, NADAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).25968/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.T.G.Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 2. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd invited applications from eligible persons for appointment as LPG distributor at Kuttiyady in Kozhikode district. an interview was held on 10.4.2008. The petitioner and the fifth respondent appeared along with others. A list was prepared. List of empanelled candidates was prepared on the same day. The petitioner was awarded 43.67 marks out of 100 and the fifth respondent was awarded 99 marks out of 100. The petitioner challenges the selection of the fifth respondent on the ground that she is a practicing Dentist. The petitioner contends that as the fifth respondent is a practicing Dentist, she cannot seek appointment as LPG distributor. 3. The official respondents have filed a statement wherein in paragraph 6, it is stated as follows. W.P.(C).25968/09 2 “Regarding the contention of the petitioner that the 5th respondent is a Dentist practicing at Nathapuram, it is submitted that applicants are required to undertake that in the event of him/her being awarded LPG distributorship, he/she would be liable to resign from the employment and being a full time distributor, it is therefore submitted that there is no bar or prohibition in an employed candidate one who is a professional from participating in the selection for award of distributorship.” 4. It is evident from paragraph 6 of the statement that there is no prohibition on Dentists applying for appointment as LPG distributor. Therefore, the mere fact that the fifth respondent is a Dentist cannot disqualify her from being appointed as LPG distributor. Further, even if the petitioner's contention is accepted and four marks awarded to the fifth respondent for experience and another four marks awarded to her for business acumen are reduced, the fifth respondent will still have higher marks than the petitioner. W.P.(C).25968/09 3 The petitioner cannot therefore successfully challenge the selection of the fifth respondent. I therefore, find no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs