- (1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri S. Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Sri Puneet Kumar Shukla, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondents No.2, 3 & 4. The Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement dated 7th September 2007 inviting applications for allotment of a retail L.P.G. distributorship at various places. The petitioner, being a widow of an army soldier and the respondent No.5 applied for distributorship at Bareilly, which was shown at Serial No.55 in the advertisement dated 07.09.2007 and was reserved for defence personnels. The results were declared, in which respondent No.5 was awarded 110 marks out of 140 marks and the petitioner was awarded 75 marks out of 140 marks. Accordingly, the allotment was made in favour of respondent No.5 since he secured the highest marks. The petitioner being aggrieved by the allotment of the distributorship to respondent No.5, has filed the present writ petition contending that wrong marks had been awarded to the respondent No.5. It was urged that the petitioner had also shown to possess a go-down and the respondent No.5 had also shown to possess a go-down, which was one of the conditions for awarding marks, but the petitioner was awarded 18 marks and the respondent No.5 was awarded 25 marks. The learned counsel accordingly contended that since both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 stood on the same footing, common marks, namely 25 marks, should have been awarded to both, which was not done and such discrepancy in the distribution of marks is discriminatory.
(2.) Having considered the submission, we find that even if we accept the arguments of the learned counsel, the net result would not change, inasmuch as the difference in the awarded marks under the head 'Godown' is 7 marks and even if 7 marks are added to the total marks of the petitioner, even then the petitioner would not be able to surpass the marks awarded to respondent No.5. Consequently, this ground has no force and cannot be accepted.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the total marks to be awarded was 100 as per the advertisement, whereas the marks declared indicates that the total number of marks was 140, and therefore, such departure from the advertisement was wholly incorrect. In our view, such ground cannot be taken into consideration at this stage, namely at the stage of hearing, when no such assertion has been made by the petitioner in the writ petition or in the two supplementary affidavits that had been filed. It was also contended that widows were required to be given preference as per clause 3-kha of the advertisement. We have perused this condition and we find that preference to a war-widow could only be given at a stage when all other parameters were found to be equal. In the instant case, other parameters were not found to be equal, and therefore, preferential right could not be given to the petitioner.;