Tapen Sen, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner (Jayanti Kumari) has filed the instant writ application for a direction upon respondent No. 3 (Dealer Selection Board, Jamshedpur through Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) restraining them from passing any final order in relation to the allotment of the dealership as according to the petitioner, she fulfilled all the requisite qualifications and was declared No. 1 in the interview for the same.

3. According to the petitioner, pursuant to an advertisement published vide Annexure 1, on 28.8.2000 and fulfilling all the necessary qualifications, the petitioner applied for dealership against column 26 of the advertisement. Subsequently, she was called for interview vide letter dated 6.9.2001 and on the day of interview she presented all necessary original documents for perusal of the interview Board.

4. The petitioner has stated that thereafter, she was waiting anxiously for the results when she received a letter from the Dealer Selection Board informing........... her

that they had received a complaint against her being selected as first empanelled candidate relating to her residence and also in relation to the annual income of her husband and, therefore, she was informed that she was not eligible for selection. However, she was requested to produce further documents before the Chairman, Dealer Selection Board on 10.10.2001 at Ranchi in support of her eligibility relating to her residence and income.

5. The petitioner has enclosed the complaint vide Annexure 5 which appears to have been sent by one Arun Kumar Singh (respondent No. 7) informing the Dealer Selection Board that the petitioner is a married lady having been married in the district of Gopalganj in Bihar and that her husband was an engineer working in Madhya Pradesh whose annual income was above Rs. 2 lacs. In the complaint it was further mentioned that her fathers house was at Garhwa and she herself used to live with her husband. According to the complaint, therefore, her selection as the first empanelled candidate was not proper. According to petitioner, there was no secrecy maintained with the Dealer Selection Board as there was no reason to explain as to how the said respondent No. 7 could come to know that the result to the effect that petitioner has been selected as the first empanelled candidate.

6. However, the petitioner states that pursuant to Annexure 4 she appeared and filed her cause giving details and produced all documents in her favour vide Annexure 6. In the said cause she explained that she had been married alter the last date of submitting her application to an average family in Gopalganj. She also stated that she had studied in Daltonganj and that she was living with her husband at Daltonganj. She also enclosed the original certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Daltonganj showing her to be a resident of Daltonganj.

7. The petitioner states that on 31.10.2001 by Annexure 7, the second empanelled candidate i.e. respondent No. 8 along with respondent No. 7 were also called to appear for final hearing on 7.11.2001 at Jamshedpur. Although, according to petitioner, respondent No. 7, being not a member of the Scheduled Caste, could not have been called because the Dealership at Serial No. 26 of the Advertisement was reserved exclusively for the Scheduled Caste.

8. The petitioner stales that on 31.10.2001 she filed a detailed show cause before the Chairman of the Board giving all details so that the dealership could be awarded to her. At para 14, the petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 8 is the brother of an Ex. MLA and that the respondent No. 4 had cancelled the residential/domicile certificate of the petitioner without notice and without giving her an opportunity of hearing.

9. According to petitioner, the original certificate was cancelled vide order dated 11.12.2001 as contained at Annexure 10 and pursuant thereto the respondent No. 3 issued a letter dated 17.12.2001. As per thi