RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

1. The petitioner seeks to secure for himself distributorship of non-domestic LPG, in respect of which, offers were invited by respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as HPCL) in March, 2011. The petitioner having failed to secure the distributorship has challenged in the present writ petition not only the result of the interview held by HPCL as being contrary to the rules prescribed by HPCL in its brochure for selection of HP Gas Distributors (hereinafter referred to as the brochure) but also the selection of respondent no. 3 who is the successful candidate.

2. The challenge, shorn of verbiage is essentially based on the provisions of the brochure, in particular, clause 15 of the said Brochure which provides for a display of the results obtained by various applicants on the notice board of the interviewing office of the HPCL. The said Clause mandates giving names of those candidates who secured a place in the merit panel. The names, as per clause 15 of the brochure were required to be shown in order of merit alongwith detailed marks scored. The list was to contain names of all candidates who appeared for the interview in order of merit. The relevant clause of the brochure on which, in a sense, a substantial part of the petitioner's case is pivoted reads as follows:

“15. RESULTS OF THE INTERVIEW

After completion of the interviews for a location, results, giving names of the merit panel in the order of merit along with the detailed marks scored will be displayed on the notice board of the interviewing office. This list will contain the names of all the candidate who appeared for the interview (in order of interview). If no suitable candidate is available, the selection committee may recommend for re-advertisement.”

3. This apart, the petitioner has challenged the eligibility and qualifications of respondent no. 3, who has been, as indicated above, declared a successful candidate. I shall elaborate on the same in the course of my judgment.

1. 4. In this background, it may be relevant to briefly sketch out the brief facts, which led to the institution of the present petition.

2. 4.1 On 17.03.2011 the HPCL issued an advertisement through its zonal office, at Delhi, for appointment of distributors vis-a-vis non-domestic LPG. The advertisement made it clear that the distributors were being appointed in order to market packed LPG to HPCL’s commercial and industrial customers, in various locations, indicated in the said advertisement. The advertisement referred to ten (10) locations, amongst which, one was to be appointed in Bawal, District Rewari in the State of Haryana. Importantly, the advertisement also made it clear that the applicants would not be allowed to enroll themselves for domestic LPG customers. The distributors selected were required to exclusively market non-domestic LPG, in the designated trading area, defined by HPCL.

3. 4.2 It may noticed the advertisement also called upon the applicants to obtain the details of eligibility, evaluation of criteria for selection and, the format for the application either from, the HPCL website or, from the identified contact persons referred to in the advertisement. Various other aspects about processing fee etcetera, were also referred to in the advertisement. The advertisement also made it clear that for a candidate to be

included in the merit panel he had to obtain 40% minimum marks, after the interview, out of a total of 100 marks. In the event of none of the candidates getting 40% marks, it was made clear that, that particular location would be re-advertised.

1. 4.3 The petitioner applied against the aforementioned advertisement. The petitioner, apparently, appended documents in support of the claims made in the application.

2. 4.4 Admittedly, pursuant to an invitation issued to the petitioner, vide communication dated 21.07.2011, the petitioner appeared for an interview before the selection committed constituted by the HPCL. The interviews were he