IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 4297 of 2005 Between: Kum. V. Kama Lakshmi, D/o. Maha Lakshmi, Vechalam Village, Lakkavaram Post, Devarapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Govt of India, Ministry of Petroleum Oil & Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, II & III Floors, Naspur House, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-500 029. 3 Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Marketing Division, Visakha Divisional Office, 47-1336, Gupta Building, I Floor,Dimond Partk Road, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam -530016. .....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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer to the 2nd respondent Corporation at Kakinada, RTC Road, East Godavari District under P.H. ( women) Category by making an endorsement by the Selection Committee vide Ref. V.R./ROD dated 15.02.2005 is highly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer to the 2nd respondent Corporation at Kakinada, RTC road, East Godavari District under P.H. ( Women) category by following the Guidelines issued by the 1st respondent for selection of Retail Outlet Dealer by considering her educational qualification in terms of Notification issued by the 2nd respondent dated 25.09.2004. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.V.SANJAY KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited Marketing Division, Hyderabad issued notification for appointment of the Retail Outlet Dealers in respect of the RTC road, Kakinada-East Godavari Town. It is stated that in the said notification, dated 25-09-2004, S.No.25 in respect of Kakinada RTC road-East Godavari town was reserved under physically handicapped woman category. It is further stated that the petitioner who is a physically handicapped woman applied for the said outlet dealership of DLR owned category and pursuant to the application petitioner was called for the interview and she appeared for the same, but she has not been selected. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Counter has been filed stating that no doubt the said Retail Outlet Dealership at Kakinada RTC road was reserved under the category of physically handicapped woman and the petitioner applied for the same, and she being found eligible she was also called for interview vide call letter, dated 27-01-2005, but as per the conditions of the notification the candidate has to provide land for establishment of the Retail Outlet for which a separate parameter of marks ‘35’ is specified and the petitioner did not furnish any land particulars and therefore though the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and physically handicapped woman as she failed to get the minimum qualifying marks of 60, as no mark was allotted to her under the head of the land and infrastructure she has not been selected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the important note No.C even after selection also it is open for the candidate to provide the land within two months and if the land is not able to be secured then only the dealership has to be cancelled but non-selection of the petitioner on the ground that she has not furnished any land particulars, and not secured 60 marks, is illegal, and arbitrary. 5. I am unable to accept the said contention as the condition No.A of the important note specifically stipulates that the applicant must furnish the details of the land before making available to Indian Oil Corporation Limited for Retail Outlet Dealership. Without the land the question of establishing any Outlet does not arise. Therefore, the petitioner could have secured the land either on lease, rent, or ownership. If the petitioner is unable to secure the land it is not the duty or responsibility of the respondents to secure a land and therefore it cannot be said that the non-selection of the petitioner is illegal or contrary to the notification. However, if the said outlet dealership is reserved for physically handicapped woman it should be given to the physically handicapped woman only and if no one is found eligible, re-notification has to be issued for selection of the dealership reserving in favour of physically handicapped. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, if the dealership has not been notified so far, respondents shall take immediate steps to re-notify so as to enable the petitioner and other similarly situated persons to apply and seek selection in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 10th March, 2008 Tsy