By the Court.—This is a writ petition challenging the order dated 30.4.2013 whereby the selection for the retail outlet dealership at Charkhola, Block Bilsanda, Tehsil Bisalpur, District Pilibhit in which the petitioner was found to be the highest in merit has been cancelled.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that for grant of Kisan Sewa Kendra retail outlet for location at Charkhola, Block Bilsanda, Tehsil Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, applications were invited from eligible candidates through advertisement published in the Dainik Jagran news paper on 20.12.2010. The petitioner was one of the candidates for the location Charkhola, Block Bilsanda, Tehsil Bisalpur, District Pilibhit. Beside the petitioner there were three other applicants for the same location. The candidates were interviewed on 14.10.2011 and after the interview and perusal of their testimonials the selection committee awarded marks under the various parameters prescribed for the purposes of selection of Petrol/Diesel retail outlet under the Kisan Sewa Kendra dealership Scheme/Brochure dated 1.7.2010. The petitioner was placed in the waiting list with a total marks of 88.9. The other three candidates were awarded 33.43, 47.50 and 52.00 marks respectively. However, in spite of the petitioner being at the top of the merit in the select panel, no Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued in his favour and on the contrary the impugned order dated 30.4.2013 was passed whereby the merit panel was itself cancelled and directions were given to the re-evaluate the marks of all the candidates who had attended the interview. The reasons given for cancellation of the merit panel was that there was an error in the evaluation of “Land Parameter” of the petitioner.

3. We have heard Shri Vimlendu Tripathi and Shri Prakash Padia for the respondents.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed on an alleged complaint made by one Ms. Mrudu Jaiswal. We need not go into the allegations made in the complaint of Ms. Mrudu Jaiswal. On behalf of the petitioner it has been stated that subsequently Ms. Mrudu Jaiswal submitted an affidavit dated 25.4.2012 (wrongly mentioned as 19.4.2013) filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition (at page 91) stating therein that she had not submitted any complaint against the selection of the petitioner and that any such alleged complaint is a forged document submitted in her name. In the face of this affidavit the complaint allegedly made by Ms. Mrudu Jaiswal is a pseudonymous complaint and could not have been acted upon by the respondents. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Brochure dated 1.7.2010 which deals with the selection of Petrol/Diesel retail outlet (Kisan Sewa Kendra) Dealers. Paragraph 18 of the said Brochure provides that any person aggrieved may send his complaint to the Indian Oil Corporation within 30 days of the selection. Paragraph 18(a)(i) of the Brochure, however, provides that anonymous/pseudonymous complaint will not be investigated and will be filed without taking any action on them. The relevant extract of paragraph 18(A)(i) of the Brochure reads as under:

“18. GRIEVANCE/COMPLAINT REDRESSAL SYSTEM:

(A) An aggrieved person may send his/her complaint to IOC at the address of the customer service cell displayed at the nearest retail outlet of IOC. Complaints can also be lodge on the website of IOC. Complaints against dealer selection received after 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the interview will not be entertained under any circumstances.

(i) Anonymous/pseudonymous complaints will not be investigate and will be field without taking any action on the same.

(ii).............”

5. The submission of learned counsel, therefore, is that once Ms. Mrudu Jaiswal has submitted an affidavit denying that she had never made any complaint in her name with regard to selection of the petitioner and in her affidavit dated 25