1 W.P. No.4701 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.4701 of 2009 With Civil Application No.9716 of 2011 Vasantkumar s/o Adinathrao Lawande. .. Petitioner. Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited. .. Respondent. -------- Shri. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate holding for Shri. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate, for petitioner. Shri. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, for respondent. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE: 22nd AUGUST 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner has challenged the rejection of his candidature by respondent-Oil Company as the petitioner did not possess DGR certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the application of the petitioner was processed and the 2 W.P. No.4701 of 2009 petitioner was interviewed along with another candidate by the respondent-Company. But at the final stage the company rejected the application which itself is unreasonable and arbitrary act on the part of the respondent company. 3) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, production of such certificate was essential requirement under the advertisement and as the respondent-company found that the petitioner was not possessing the said certificate, petitioner's application was not considered and came to be rejected. The counsel submits that second advertisement is issued by the respondent for selection of suitable candidate. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that directions are required to be issued to the Central Government before whom the application of the petitioner is pending for grant of certificate. Considering the scope of the petition in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction we are not inclined to issue any such directions though the petitioner is at liberty to file 3 W.P. No.4701 of 2009 appropriate representation before concerned authorities for the said certificate. In the light of the conditions enumerated in the advertisement we do not find that there was error on the part of the respondent-company or procedural violation in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 5) No interference is called for in exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. Civil Application No.9716 of 2011 does not survive, it stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl