IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 1121 of 2003 Between: S. Saraswathi D/o. Ramaiah, R/o. H.No.3-73, Husbanad (P&M), Karimnagar District-505467. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas GOI, Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The Area Marketing Manager (Retail), Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., S.D.Road, Secunderabad-500003. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not appointing the petitioner as Dealer for Retail Outlet of 2nd respondent corporation at Musthabad in pursuance of advertisement dt.8.7.2000 published in Hindi as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India and further declare that the petitioner is entitled for appointment of the dealer for the retail outlet of the 2nd respondent corporation at Musthabad, Karimnagar District and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.RAMAKRISHNA RAO SIDDANATHI (SC FOR CG) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner submits that pursuant to the notification issued by the second respondent – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 08.07.2000 proposing to appoint dealers for retail outlet at Musthabad Village of Karimnagar District under the category reserved for SC women as per the marketing plan for 1996-98, she being SC women applied for the retail outlet dealership. She further submits that one S. Mrudhula also applied for the said dealership and she was awarded 46 marks and the petitioner was awarded 31 marks. Petitioner was in the second position in the select list but on a complaint with regard to illegal selection made during that year a two Judge committee of the Supreme Court was appointed and the Committee by its report held that Mrudhula was arbitrarily awarded highest marks, therefore, the allotment made in favour of Mrudhula vitiates. Aggrieved by the said report, some of them, whose outlets have been held to be arbitrarily allotted, have approached the Supreme Court but no relief was granted against the said cancellation of allotment. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that when that candidate at Sl.No.1 of the merit list was found ineligible there cannot be any justification on the part of the respondents in not allotting the outlet to the next candidate, who secured highest marks. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the entire selection where the irregularities have been found have been cancelled and the respondent decided to issue re-notification and even before the re-notification has been issued, the petitioner filed this writ of mandamus seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled for allotment to the retain outlet dealership. It is stated that during pendency of the writ petition, a letter dated 21.10.2005 was addressed to the petitioner informing that the letter of intent issued in favour of Ms. S. Mrudhula was withdrawn and as per the affidavit filed in the Supreme Court wherever the selections have not been approved, feasibility has to be conducted and if the selection is found arbitrary a fresh advertisement has to be released for the selection of the dealer and selection done afresh. Accordingly, the petitioner was advised to apply as and when fresh advertisement is issued. 4. It is stated that a fresh advertisement has been issued on 19.11.2005 for appointment of the retail outlet dealer in Musthabad reserved for SC women. The petitioner has not questioned the said notification calling for the applications by amending the prayer in the writ petition but a separate WPMP.No.35422 of 2005 has been filed to stay the said advertisement. Unless the writ prayer is amended to set aside the said notification, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed in WPMP. However, I have considered the merits of the case also. As the selection selecting the petitioner and Mrudula is not in existence and the Committee of the Judges has not made any allotment of dealership to the petitioner and unless the same selection committee considers the entitlement of the petitioner, the question of selecting the petitioner does not arise. Though the marks allotted to the petitioner was 31 but some Pati Shakuntala is stated to have obtained 33 marks, therefore, the Committee accordingly held that allotment of higher marks in favour of Mrudhula was arbitrary and therefore, that does not mean that the petitioner is automatically entitled for allotment. However, as the said dealership has been re-notified calling for the applications reserved to SC women category alone it is open for the petitioner to apply. 5. It is stated that as per the guidelines of the respondent corporation whenever the first select candidate is not entitled for allotment the selection committee has to consider the case of the next candidate. 6. As the selection committee is not in existence, the question of considering the case of the petitioner does not arise, therefore, the only course open to the petitioner is to apply pursuant to the re-notification of dealership. If the petitioner has already applied and the selection process is not over, it is for the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J March 12, 2008 DSK