IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 8100 of 2008(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R.GLARUS, KUNNIL HOUSE, CHULLIMANOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD VIA., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., PIN 695 541. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., GROUND FLOOR, PREMIER PARK, ENJAKKAL JUNCTION, VELLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-8. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 8100 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an applicant for appointment as a Kissan Seva Kendra (Retail Outlet) dealer, pursuant to applications invited by the respondent. Petitioner's contention is that his application was not considered. Respondent has filed a counter affidavit to the effect that as per the notification issued inviting applications, the petitioner was bound to produce documents detailed in the notification which include a Medical Certificate and a Nativity Certificate and those documents were not enclosed in the application which is the reason why the application was rejected. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the effect that Ext.P3 Medical Certificate was produced along with the application. But he candidly admits that the he obtained the nativity certificate subsequently on 20.11.2007 i.e., after the last date for submitting the applications and he produced the same of the same date. According to the petitioner, the respondent accepted the same and in fact conducted a site inspection also. Petitioner therefore submits that now the respondents cannot turn around and say that they will not consider his application. W.P.(C).No. 8100 OF 2008 2 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce the nativity certificate along with the application. It is also not disputed before me that in the notification inviting applications, submission of the nativity certificate along with the application was a condition. The fact that the petitioner subsequently produced the nativity certificate and the respondent accepted the same and conducted a site inspection, does not change the situation in favour of the petitioner, in so far as the petitioner did not produce the same along with the application. That being so, I do not find anything wrong with the action of the respondent in refusing to consider the petitioner's application which was not complete in all respects as per the notification inviting applications. Therefore I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-