IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.595 of 2010 1. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH, S/O SRI VINOD PD. SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST- BAUGARAHTTA, P.S.- SINGHIA, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. . . . . . PETITIONER . . . . APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, OIL AND NATURAL GAS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGD. OFFICE G- 9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI- 400051. 3. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., ADD.- G-9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, BIHAR STATE, OFFICE, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAVAN, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, BEGUSARAI, DIVISIONAL OFFICE OPP.- BARAUNI REFINERY THANA, P.O.- BARAUNI REFINAERY, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. 6. GAURI SHANKAR SINGH, S/O SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH, ADD.- VILLAGE & P.O.- BANARGHATTA, P.S.- SINGHIA, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. . . . . . . . RESPONDENTS. . . . RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2/ 26.03.2011 Heard Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh for the appellant, and Mr. K.D. Chatterji for respondent nos. 2 to 5. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 12273 of 2009, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 05.02.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the order of the answering respondents refusing to recall the panel in question, has been upheld. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) had issued advertisement, inviting applications from 2 eligible applicants to operate Kisan Seva Kendra. The appellant was one of the candidates. After completion of the selection process, he was placed at no.2 of the merit list. He lodged a complaint with the Corporation against the selection process which was upheld, the panel was recalled, and a fresh selection process took place. In the second selection process, the appellant was disqualified on the ground that he had interpolated with copies of the documents which he had submitted in support of his application. The answering respondents had called upon the appellant to produce the documents in original for verification, which he had declined to do, leading to the impugned order to the effect that the second selection process would stand. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in this back-ground of facts, with which we entirely agree. The appeal is dismissed. Uday/ (S. K. Katriar, J.) (S. P. Singh, J.)