- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aspirant for the LPG Distributorship gave his offer and petitioner secured 100% marks as per the norms prescribed in the guidelines. The petitioner has not been awarded the said LPG Distributorship on the ground that when draw was taken for the LPG Distributorship then the draw went in favour of respondent no.3, who secured only 95% marks under condition no.11. The petitioner who took chance of selection is challenging the condition no.12.2 given in the scheme of selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak (Annex.1). According to learned counsel for the petitioner the merit should have been the criteria and once the respondents fixed the marks on the basis of criteria laid down by themselves then they could not have proceeded to give the LPG Distributorship by draw. It is submitted that had it been a case of obtaining equal marks under condition no.11 then Distributorship could have been given by draw. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the scheme. Condition no.11 clearly states that it is a criteria to judge the eligibility and this is not the criteria for awarding the LPG Distributorship. There is specific condition no.12.2 which says that the persons who comes in the zone of consideration by securing marks of eligibility as prescribed under condition no.11 then the draw will be the mode for allotment of LPG Distributorship. The petitioner knowing it well that this will be the procedure and condition no.11 is not the criteria for awarding of the LPG Distributorship took chance of getting the LPG Distributorship under condition no.12.2 and when he failed then he wants to challenge the condition no.12.2. If the petitioner would have got the LPG Distributorship then he would not have challenged as well as he could not have challenged the condition no.12.2 because he would not have been an aggrieved party. It is settled law that the person who take part in the process of selection and failed then after taking part in that process of selection, cannot challenge the condition of selection.
(2.) In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioner has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.;