IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3664 of 2010 ANURADHA DEVI W/O LATE CP.RAJESH KUMAR D/O SAI JAI MANGAL SINGH, R/O VILLAGE PADHWARA PS-TARAPUR DISTT- MUNGER-------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE G.M.,INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (MD) 5TH FLOOR LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA 2. THE DIVISIONAL ZONE MANAGER IOC LTD. MAURYA LOK COMPLEX 5TH FLOOR, PATNA 3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDIAN AREA OFFICE, IOC LTD. BARAUNI DISTT- BEGUSSARAI. 4. RATNESHWAR PD. SINGH S/O LATE RAMASHISH SINGH R/O VILLAGE GANAILI (DHARMPUR) PS-HARPUR, DISTT- MUNGER-- - --------------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Advocate For IOC (Respondents): M/s. A.K.Sinha & A.K.Verma, Advocates. ---------- 2 3.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner throws a challenge to the selection of respondent no.4 who has been selected and issued a letter of intent by respondent IOC for setting up Indane Distributorship for the location Gajipur in the District of Munger. The initial advertisement was under PMP category and from the material which has been brought on record by the petitioner respondent no.4 seems to be the only candidate who applied and was considered by the Selection Board. Petitioner is now aggrieved by the said selection and has filed the present writ application to set aside the said selection of respondent no.4. His first contention is that it is no selection in the eye of law because there was only one candidate who was the applicant and even the said candidate did not score the minimum qualifying mark. Since he was the only applicant the benefit has accrued in his favour. - 2 - Based on the above facts learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a situation of this kind the need of the hour is readvertisement. The brochure does envisage such a situation. If readvertisement is done the petitioner will have an opportunity to apply for being considered. Learned counsel representing the IOC states that the petitioner was not an applicant to the advertisement. Merely because she may have the eligibility and some kind of interest aroused in her to obtain a dealership on a later date it does not mean that she has acquired a right for the selection which is already made and over. Other aspect pointed out is that there is discretion on behalf of the Company whether to go with readvertisement or to go with recommendation for selection. Learned counsel representing the petitioner does not deny the fact that she was not an applicant in terms of the advertisement but she has been making communication with Corporation and other high ups seeking the benefit as a former war widow. Those are other aspect of the matter which are not the subject matter of adjudication in the present writ application. This Court is not convinced that the selection of respondent no.4 needs to be interfered with or any direction be given for readvertisement merely for asking. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed as such. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)