IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30078 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BEENA P., W/O.PADMANABHAN, KANIYOORVALAPPIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENT: -------------------- THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, INDANE AREA OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN -682036. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1 SRI.V.J.ANAND FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.30078 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner responded to Exhibit P1 advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation inviting applications for the distributorship of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) in the Open Category for Woman at Edappal in Malappuram District. Exhibit P2 is the application submitted by the petitioner. Petitioner’s grievance is that she was not called for interview. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. Para 4 of the said counter affidavit reads as follows: “Pursuant to the notifications published as above, the respondent had received, for the location Edappal, 36 (thirty six) applications of which 9 (nine) were found to be ineligible and interview call letters have been issued to 27 (twenty seven) applicants. So far as the application preferred by the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that applicants who are individuals are required to submit an affidavit in the format prescribed in Annexure A as prescribed in the notification. It is submitted W.P ( C) No.30078 of 2008 2 in this context that the notification produced by the petitioner is not the complete notification. True copy of the complete notification dated 27.12.2007 published by the respondent is produced marked as Exhibit R1 (a). Respondent is also producing herewith true copy of the English translation of the affidavit to be submitted by individuals as per Annexure A marked as Exhibit R1(b). It is submitted that the affidavit as prescribed in Annexure A has six clauses and the averments therein are with reference to the qualification of the applicant to participate in the interview. The position as mentioned above does not seem to be controverted. It is further evidenced by Exhibit R1(b) application. If that be so, it cannot be held that respondents have committed any illegality in not accepting the petitioner’s application. I do not find any reason to issue a direction to the respondent. In these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.30078 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.30078 of 2008 4