IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.256 of 2006 Reema Devi, wife of Sri Sukan Paswan, resident of village Sandha Dumber, P.O. & P.S. Motipur, District Muzaffarpur (Bihar)- 843111………………………………………..……Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union Of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. The Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation, 3A Maurya Lok Complex, Dakbunglow Road, Patna. 3. The Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Block-A, 3rd Floor, Maurya Lok Complex, Dakbunglow Road, Patna-800001…………………………………..Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Prakash Sahay, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Kali Das Chatterji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amlesh Kr.Verma, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 06/ 29.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 25.08.2005 (Annexure-11) issued by Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity) by which the result of interview dated 25.08.2005 regarding retail outlet for location of Pakridayal Patahi Road in the district of East Champaran had been withheld and the matter was under review. 3. The claim of the petitioner was that she had fulfilled all the criteria, but in spite of the aforesaid facts her candidature was not accepted and by the impugned order it was observed that since the matter was under review, the result would be displayed after twenty days. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of - 2 - the respondents annexing the marks obtained by the petitioner in interview dated 25.08.2005 (Annexure-B) in which it was found that the total of marks obtained in various heads was only 15 out of 100 marks, although the minimum qualifying marks was only 50% as per the policy of the Corporation (Annexure-A). In that circumstances it is stated on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner having not fulfilled any criteria, there was no occasion for considering her candidature. 5. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected much earlier in the year 2005, whereafter this writ petition was filed in the year 2006 without challenging the aforesaid mark sheet. However, in any view of the matter about six years have lapsed. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court does not find any reason to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)