S.P.MEHROTRA, Poonam Srivastava, JJ. - (1.) IT appears that the respondent No.2 invited applications for appointment of LPG Gas Distributor by an advertisement dated 7-9-2007 (Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition). The petitioner submitted an application dated 7-10-2007, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition. From a perusal of the application of the petitioner, it appears that in Column 7.8, the petitioner was required to give reply to the query "Are you having sound Physical/Mental health ?". The reply, as given by the petitioner, to the said query was "No". It is further note-worthy that the said Column 7.8 also states that "For being eligible, applicant should have sound Physical/Mental health". In view of the reply given by the petitioner in the said Column 7.8, the respondent No.2 by the order dated 29-9-2008 rejected the application of the petitioner, inter-alia, observing that "your candidature has not been found to be eligible for award of subject distributorship as Candidate has declared herself mentally and physically not fit under Column 7.8".
(2.) THE present Writ Petition has been filed against the said order dated 29-9-2008. We have heard Sri Yogendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Miss Shikha Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and perused the record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was on account of inadvertence and lack of sufficient knowledge of English Language that the said Column 7.8 was not correctly filled in by the petitioner. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner should not be deprived of opportunity to get Distributorship on account of the said inadvertent mistake. In reply, Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that a perusal of the application of the petitioner shows that the petitioner is a Post-Graduate from Purvanchal University and, therefore, the submission that she was not having sufficient knowledge of English language, is not correct.
(3.) SRI Prakash Padia further states that the interview pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement took place on 16th, 17th and 18th October, 2008. As the process of interview is already over, no action in the matter of the petitioner can now be taken in any view of the matter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petition lacks merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed.;