1. There are three petitioners, first petitioner is an ex-serviceman, petitioners 2 and 3 are war-widows. Petitioners intend to apply for grant of dealership in distribution of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (for short LPG) cylinders (domestic). This writ petition is instituted assailing certain clauses in the notification issued in the daily newspapers by the Petroleum companies. The notification issued was a combined notification concerning all the Petroleum companies. Petitioners challenge the clauses in the broacher of guidelines for selection of regular LPG distributors, notified by the oil companies as with reference to the policy of reservation to the defence personnel; prescription of educational qualifications; age restrictions and method of selection. Clause 2 deals with reservation.

A new sub-category is now created which is called as ‘Government Personnel category’ and defence personnel are grouped along with the Central /State Government and Central/State Government public sector undertaking employees and all of them put together are entitled to reservation of 8 % of the distributorship which include 2 % to SC/ST, 2% to OBC and 4% to open category.

2. With the consent of counsels for respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

3. Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for petitioners, Ms.Nanda, learned counsel appearing for Central Government, Sri D.V.Seetharam Murthy, senior counsel for Sri Mayur Reddy, learned standing counsel and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent companies.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the classification assigned to Ex-Servicemen/war widows is ex-facie illegal. He contended that there cannot be any comparison of defence personnel with the Government employees. Comparing persons who secured gallantry awards on account of service rendered by them in protecting the boundaries of the country are treated on par with the persons described as white collar employees working under the State or Central Government or their public sector undertakings and who might have suffered small disabilities, is wholly irrational and illogical.

5. On each of the contentions urged, learned counsel refers to the previous policy, which was in force. Learned counsel contended that the policy which was in force prior to the revised policy and based on which earlier distributorships were awarded, there was exclusive reservation in favour of the defence personnel to an extent of 8% and there is absolutely no justification to alter the said percentage of reservation.

6. While refuting the stand of the respondents that there was poor response from the defence personnel, therefore it was decided to club the defence category with other Government personnel learned counsel contended that there are enough safeguards provided in the policy and if in any particular reserved category, the response is poor or not available, the slot gets automatically transferred to another category and can be filled up by another category and there is no question of carrying forward the slot to the same category in future also. Thus, sufficient safe guards are incorporated which deals with the de-categorisation. He therefore contended that it was illegal in not adopting said procedure while retaining 8% reservation and the reasoning assigned is not justified.

7. Learned counsel further attacked the eligibility criteria prescribed in clause (6). It is contended that it is not possible to expect a Sipoy to possess such high qualifications and opt to serve as a Sipoi in Indian Army; normally with lower educational qualifications and persons belonging to lower strata of the society opt to serve the Army as Sipoi and better qualified persons normally opt to become Officers in the defence services. Therefore such employees in the defence services cannot be expected to possess such high qualifications as prescribed now. More so, the war-widows of such employe