IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4001 of 2009 Date of decision: March 16, 2009. Mrs. Raj Bala Punia ...Petitioner(s) v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Aman Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to treat her eligible for the award of LPG distributorship of Bharat Gas at Saha, District Ambala under the PMP(W) category in terms of the advertisement dated 9.11.2007. The petitioner applied for the LPG distributorship at Saha, District Ambala in response to the advertisement Annexure P-1. Her application, however, has been rejected by the respondent – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vide letter dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P-3) on the plea that she “does not meet the eligibility criteria (incapacitated or disabled while performing duties/death while performing duties). Aggrieved against the rejection of her candidature, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure P-6). One of the plea taken by the petitioner is that in response to the same advertisement, she had also applied for the award of LPG distributorship by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and the said Corporation treated her eligible for the award of LPG distributorship for Matlauda, District Panipat, though the petitioner could not be finally selected and remained at No.2 in the merit list. In other words, the petitioner's grievance is that if on the basis of same eligibility conditions, she was found eligible by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, how could it be that she is being treated ineligible by the Bharat Petroleum. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and keeping in view the contention raised on her behalf as noticed above, I am of the considered view that the representation made by the petitioner to the respondent-Corporation seeking reconsideration of her candidature merits consideration though no final opinion with regard to the petitioner's eligibility can be expressed at this stage. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure P-6) and dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order as early as possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till then, status quo with regard to allotment shall be maintained. March 16, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge