Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner questioning the selection of respondent No. 4 for grant of Retail Outlet (RO) in the category of "outstanding sports person", for short, OSP, in respect of location at Amguri in the district of Sivasagar. Direction is also sought for to declare the petitioner as the most suitable candidate under the category of OSP or in the category of 33% reserved for women category. Conspicuously, date of the letter purporting to indicate selection of the respondent No. 4 has been kept blank. The facts, in a nutshell, as emerging from the writ petition is that the petitioner is an educated unemployed youth and a national level sports woman. She had earned many laurels and prizes in various national level competitions in the discipline of "weight lifting". She had secured first place in 56 kg weight class at the national bench press power lifting championship held at Mount Abu on and from 16th to 18th July, 2004. The said competition is recognised by the Department of Youth Affairs & Sports, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India and International Power Lifting Federation and The Indian Olympic Association.

2. Numaligarh Refinery Limited, for short, NRL, had published an advertisement in various news papers including "Dainik Janambhumi", Jorhat, in its 10th February issue of 2006, inviting applications for appointment as dealers for RO in various states as indicated in the said advertisement at or in the vicinity of locations given in the advertisement. The location of Amguri in the district of Sivasagar was reserved for OSP.

3. A brochure is also published by the NRL laying down procedure for selection and details of reservation in various categories etc. and para 3.2 thereof provides that 33% of the dealerships in each category will be reserved for woman belonging to that category. Petitioner, being an OSP as per the norms, submitted an application for the location Amguri under the category of OSP.

4. The respondent No. 4, who is a body builder had also offered his candidature for the RO at Amguri. The respondent No. 4 is not eligible because body building is not a sport and the same is also not recognised by International Olympic Association or in the national context also. It is pleaded in the writ petition that respondent No. 4 claimed that he was declared as champion in a national body building competition held at Mumbai but subsequently, the first prize was given to a Mumbaikar on the ground that he was an outsider. The respondent No. 4 had emerged as Champion of the Champions at Mr. India 2006 Federation Cup held in Mangalore on 20.03.2006, much later than the last date of submission of application, which was 15.03.2006. The title of Mr. India bestowed on respondent No. 4 is shrouded with controversies.

5. The respondent No. 4 is an employee of Assam Board of Sports and apart from that, he is also engaged as a Coach/Instructor and therefore, he will not be in a position to personally monitor the affairs of the dealership, which is a requirement under the terms and conditions of the application. Further more, land offered by the respondent No. 4 is located barely 10 mtrs. away from a "Tiniali" (Tri-junction), thus not meeting the statutory norms including National Highways norms for highway ROs and therefore, no marks could be allotted to the respondent No. 4 and his application merits rejection for not fulfilling the basic requisite essentials of a suitable piece of land. The letter of intent in favour of the respondent No. 4 was not produced but it is stated that the letter dated 09.08.2006 clearly demonstrates appointment of respondent No. 4 as the dealer for the RO in question. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was selected at SI. No. 2. Though 76 ROs had been advertised under the advertisement in question, NRL had not given reservation of 33% to the women candidates in each catego