THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.30181 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st respondent issued a notification on 25-06-2010, inviting applications for selection of dealers for Kisan Seva Kendra (Retail Outlets) at various places, including the one, at Devanakonda Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. The petitioner, the 3rd respondent and certain others submitted applications. The 2nd respondent, who processed the application, addressed letter dated 12-10-2010 to the petitioner, stating that her application is rejected on the ground that the affidavit filed by her is not as per the format. The applicant is required to furnish various details, including the one, as to whether the applicant, his spouse, unmarried daughters and sons have the dealership of any kind of the 1st respondent-company. In addition to that, the affidavit is required to be filed, disclosing the same. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, after the words “unmarried daughter/s”, son/s was not included. That was the basis for rejection of the application of the petitioner. The petitioner got issued a notice dated 21-10-2010, through an Advocate, stating that the so-called defect is trivial, and that his application must be taken into account. A reply was given to the petitioner on 29-10-2010, stating that the defect in the affidavit is fatal to the application. Ultimately, the 3rd respondent was selected by omitting the petitioner from consideration. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the letter dated 12-10-2010, issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, discriminatory, and to set aside the proceedings, through which the 3rd respondent was selected. It is stated that once the adequate information was furnished in the application, and the affidavit conforms to the same in broader aspects, there was no basis for the respondents 1 and 2 in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Separate counter-affidavits are filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, on the one hand, and respondent No.3, on the other hand. According to them, the defect in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, along with the application, is serious in nature, and the writ petition is devoid of any merits. It is also their case that the petitioner approached the Court at a belated stage, and no relief can be granted. Heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Thoom Srinivas learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri G. Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The only ground on which the impugned letter was issued, rejecting the application of the petitioner, is that the petitioner did not include the word “son/s”, after the “unmarried daughter/s”, in the affidavit. The purport of the affidavit was to inform the respondents 1 and 2, that neither spouse, nor the unmarried children of the applicant have been granted dealership of any category by the, Oil Company. It needs to be noted that the petitioner mentioned in the application that, neither her spouse nor her unmarried daughter/s, or son/s are dealers of the Company. The defect in the affidavit is too trivial. In W.P.No.3021 of 2009, dated 15-12-2009, this Court took the view that such trivial omissions cannot constitute the basis to reject the application. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “…All the particulars are mentioned in the application itself. Filing of an affidavit is only reiteration thereof. Notwithstanding the filing of the affidavit, whenever a candidate is selected, every item of information furnished in the application is subjected to further scrutiny. Originals of the relevant testimonials or documents are verified. On certain aspects, spot inspection is conducted. When such is the case, an inadvertent omission by a Typist to mention what is otherwise mentioned in the application cannot lead to disqualification of the petitioner at the threshold. It is also important to note that the application itself contains an undertaking in Clause 17 to the effect that every information furnished by him is true and that he vouches for it. The affidavit would not add anything further and for all practical purposes, it is superfluous. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondents ought not to have disqualified the petitioner...” In that case, the defect was the failure to mention that the applicant is an Indian National. The order in W.P.No.3021 of 2009 was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court, and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said order covers the facts of the case. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that, by the time the writ petition was filed, the 3rd respondent was selected, and it cannot be entertained at this stage. They place reliance upon an order passed by this Court, in W.P.No.3428 of 2010. The record discloses that the interview in this case was held in November, 2010 and hardly within one month the petitioner approached this Court, that too, when the respondents 1 and 2 did not consider her representations. In W.P.No.3428 of 2010, the petitioner approached this Court, long after the selection of dealership became final and rights of the parties were crystallized. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned letter dated 12-10-2010, issued by the 2nd respondent is set aside. Consequently, the selection of the 3rd respondent is set aside. The respondents 1and 2 are directed to consider the matter, afresh, treating the application of the petitioner as a valid one. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22-03-2011. KO