AJAY RASTOGI, J.K.RANKA, JJ. - (1.) INSTANT intra court appeal has been filed against the judgment of the ld. single Judge dt.22.1.2013 directing the appellant to award 32 marks to which war widow/dependents of those who died in war are entitled falling in defence category while preparing inter se priority and thereafter evaluate the case of respondent -petitioner in terms of policy for allotment of retail outlet dealership of petrol/diesel in terms of advertisement dt.17.9.2011.
(2.) THE relevant facts culled out from the record are that the applications were invited for allotment of retail outlet dealership by the appellant vide advertisement dt.17.9.2011 published in Rajasthan Patrika and other news papers. Instant controversy is in relation to subject location for Harsoli, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar. It is not disputed that the respondent -petitioner who is a war widow submitted her application for allotment of retail outlet dealership and being eligible participated in the process in terms of guidelines issued by the appellants duly published for Selection of Petrol/Diesel Retail Outlet Dealership dt.15.9.2011 and appeared before the interview board on 9.1.2012. It is to be noted that she was the only applicant who had participated for subject location, however, her application was rejected after awarding her 11.98 marks. On her representation made to the grievance committee, it was placed before the scrutinizing committee and so also before high level committee to conduct reevaluation of the marks awarded to her as per dealer selection guidelines and the committee submitted its report dt.18.5.2012 and the final marks awarded to the respondent -petitioner was 10.33 out of 40 marks and accordingly was not considered to be qualified for award of dealership and that was subject matter of challenge by filing writ petition before the ld. single Judge.
(3.) AFTER taking note of the material which came on record and the submissions made by respective parties, the ld. single Judge disposed of the writ petition vide its impugned judgment dt.22.1.2013 and observed that there is some discrepancy in award of marks for various heads. At the same time, further observed that as per the policy for allotment of outlet dealership for defence category, while preparing inter se priority, war widow/dependents of those who died in war are entitled to secure 32 marks which in fact was not awarded to the respondent petitioner whereas; it should have been awarded being war widow and accordingly evaluation should be made and the appellant under impugned judgment is directed to reevaluate the candidature of the respondent -petitioner for allotment of retail outlet dealership.;