The matter at issue in the present proceeding filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the validity and correctness of award of LPG distributorship of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) at location Bhawanipur in the district of Purnea reserved for the defence personnel category on the basis of the advertisement dated 19.01.2009 (Annexure-1).

2. It is not in dispute that Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) came out with a common advertisement published on 19.01.2009 in Hindi Daily News Paper “Hindustan” (Annexure-1) inviting applications from eligible candidates for award of LPG distributorship under different categories at different locations in the State of Bihar. In the aforesaid advertisement, at serial no. 30, location advertised was Bhawanipur in the district of Purnea earmarked for defence personnel category (in short “DC”) and dealership was to be awarded by the respondent HPCL under the marketing plan 2008-2010. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner, being an ex-service man, and the respondent no.5, claiming to be the dependant of her deceased father, who was ex-service man and having died in the War, besides other eligible candidates, submitted their applications in the prescribed format within the time prescribed in the advertisement. All the eligible candidates including the petitioner and the respondent no.5 were issued interview letters and accordingly, interview of the eligible candidates was held on 06.07.2009. On the basis of interview conducted by the Selection Committee of the respondent HPCL, a merit list was prepared on 06.07.2009 itself. In the aforesaid merit list/panel (Annexure-5), one Sushil Kumar was placed at 1st position, respondent no.5 was placed at 2nd position and petitioner was placed at 3rd position.

3. It is the common case of the parties that for the reasons best known, 1st empanelled candidate Sushil Kumar did not accept the offer of the respondent HPCL for operating LPG distributorship at location in question, whereafter, the respondent no.5, being the 2nd empanelled candidate, was offered the LPG distributorship and field verification was conducted. Thereafter, she was issued letter of intent dated 23rd April, 2010 and finally she was awarded dealership by letter dated 26th August, 2010. The aforesaid letter of intent (LOI) dated 23rd April, 2010 and letter of award (LOA) dated 26th August, 2010 have been brought on record as Annexure-D series to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.5. In view of issuance of aforesaid letter of intent and letter of award, LPG distributorship at location in question was made operational.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the validity and correctness of issuance of impugned letters of intent and award of LPG distributorship in favour of the respondent no.5, submitted that at the time of issuance of advertisement on 19.01.2009, the respondent no.5 was married with one Md.Shahjahan Nadaf and she was employed as Prakhand teacher and was working on that post since 15.06.2006 at Middle School Bochgoan in the district of Purnea. Therefore, she was no longer dependant of her deceased father, who was ex-service man, Hence, she was not eligible to apply for LPG distributorship at location in question. It is further submitted that the respondent no.5 concealed the material facts while submitting her application form for award of LPG distributorship and by committing fraud and manufacturing fabricated documents, she succeeded in obtaining LPG distributorship at location in question. According to the learned counsel, selection/appointment of the respondent no.5 by the respondent HPCL for the LPG distributorship was contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement, as contained in Annexure-1, as also contrary to the provisions of Information Brochur