IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15803 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANNAKUTTY, C/O.ULAHANNAN K.V., KAVUMPURATH HOUSE, ELAGAVAM, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAURAM LPG PLANT, PB. NO. 6, KAZHAKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. V.SANKARARAMAN, TERRITORY MANAGER(LPG), BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., KAZHAKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN,SR. ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.15803 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner applied for dealership in LPG products in Vattiyoorkavu under the category for physically handicapped Women. Applications were invited on 27.12.2007. The petitioner was directed to appear for an interview on 6.10.2008, which she did. There were only three candidates for the interview. The petitioner was not selected, though she was ranked first in the interview. The petitioner moved this Court challenging the action taken by the respondents. This Court had, in W.P(C).5762/09, required the Territory Manager of the company to take a decision in the matter. A decision has been so taken as per Ext.P3. This is under challenge in this writ petition. 2.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the corporation. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. WPC.15803/09 Page numbers 3.The petitioner has been found to be ineligible essentially for the reason that she did not maintain a balance of Rupees Four Lakhs with the bank. Though, in the application submitted by her, it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.4,50,578/- is lying in the bank, the said amount did not remain with the bank for a minimum period of three months from the date of the application. Such a requirement is clearly spelt out in clause 14.2 of Annexure R1(a) advertisement. In fact, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is seen to have been withdrawn by the petitioner on 29.12.2007. Therefore, the bank balance of the petitioner as on the date of the application, i.e., 31.1.2008, was only Rs.19,277/-. Hence, there is non compliance with the condition in clause 14.2 of Ext.R1(a), according to the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amount was available on the date of the interview and this should, therefore, have been treated as sufficient. I am unable to accept this as clause 14.2 clearly shows that the amount shown in the application is to remain in the bank for a WPC.15803/09 Page numbers minimum period of three months from the date of the application or till the interview, whichever is earlier. The latter will cover the situation where the interview is held within the period of three months from the date of the application. But this does not dispense with the requirement of having the requisite amount in the bank on the date of the application and for a minimum period of three months from the date of the application where the interview is held beyond the period of three months from the date of the application. I am unable to find any fault in the stand taken by the respondents. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- V.GIRI, Judge. kkb.22/6.