Srivastava, J.--1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner-appellant had filed the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal praying for quashing of the allotment of the L.P.G. Distributorship in favour of respondent No.3, Kamlesh Kumar and requiring the Indian Oil Corporation as well as the Oil Selection Board imp-leaded as respondents No. 1 and 2 in the present appeal to reconsider his case for the grant of L.P.G. Distributorship in the light of his qualifications and long period of unemployment.

4. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide the impugned order.

5. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has now come up in appeal seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and quashing of the selection/appointment of respondent No.3 as a LPG Distributor. It has also been prayed that a direction be issued for holding a fresh selection/appointment in accordance with law and prescribed criteria and guidelines. .

6. During the pendency of the writ petition pursuant to a direction issued by the learned Single Judge the respondents No. 1 and 2 had produced the entire record relating to the impugned selection proceedings for the allotment of the LPG Distributorship in question.

7. Learned counsel for the aforesaid respondents have produced the aforesaid records during the course of hearing of this appeal which have also been perused.

8. The Indian Oil Corporation, respondent No.1, had issued an advertisement inviting applications for the allotment of distributorship of Indane (LPG) in Sabalgarh, district Morena within the municipal limits of Sabalgarh. Various eligibility criterian had been prescribed which had to be satisfied by an applicant. One of the eligibility criteria so prescribed was that the applicant should have been residing in district Morena for a period of at least five years anterior to the date of application. Another criteria was that the income of the family of the applicant as defined in the application should not have been above Rs. 50,000/- per annum in the preceding financial year. It was also prescribed that the applicant should not have any dealership or distributorship of any Oil Company and further none of his near relative as defined in the application shou1'd be dealer or distributor of any oil company.

9. It is not in dispute that the distributorship in question was of open category without any reservation. However, in the conditions regulating the allotment of the distributorship it had been specifically provided that other things being equal the Consumer Cooperative Societies will be given preference as compared to unemployed graduates and further the unemployed graduates will be entitled to preference as against other applicants.

10. The petitioner had asserted that the respondent No.3 did not fulfill the minimum qualifications and conditions and being ineligible could not have been allotted the distributorship in question. In the aforesaid connection what had been asserted was that the respondent No.3 was neither a resident of Sabalgarh nor had any land at that place of his own for godown and show-room. It was also asserted that he was already having whole-sale agency of kerosene oil, agency of fertilizers and was also holding aSher Bidi Agency and was a big businessman of Vijaypur.

11. The writ petition had been contested by respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3, who have filed separate counter-affidavits/returns denying the allegations made in the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit/return filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 it had been asserted that the selection for the allotment of the Distributorship in question was held by the oil selection Board through duly constituted selection-committee, consisting of a Chairman and two members. The chairman was a retired High Court Judge. Out of these two members one was the representative