Judicial review of administrative decisions must adhere to principles of legality, fairness, and not merely question merits if compliance with eligibility criteria is established.

1Petitioner, who is an unemployed commerce graduate, submitted application for appointment as retail dealer for the retail outlet of the second respondent at Nedumbassery Airport in Ernakulam District, pursuant to a notification (Exhibit P1) issued by the second respondent. The third respondent had also applied for the same. The first respondent, Dealer Selection Board, prepared a select list of candidates following the eligibility criteria under open category (Exhibit P2). In the said select list the third respondent was assigned first rank and the petitioner was assigned second rank. Petitioner, immediately thereafter, made Exhibit P8 complaint before the first respondent and Exhibit P9 complaint before the second respondent alleging thai: the third respondent who was assigned first rank was not eligible for being considered for dealership as per the eligibility criteria. According to the petitioner the third respondent is neither a resident of Ernakulam District nor a resident of Kerala State and that the gross income of the third respondent and her husband is more than Rs. 2 lakhs. In short, the contention of the petitioner before respondents 1 and 2 was that conditions Nos.4 and 6 of the eligibility criteria were nor; satisfied fully by the third respondent. During the pendency of the complaint before respondents 1 and 2, when the second respondent initiated further seeps for appointment of the third respondent as the dealer, petitioner has filed this Original Petition seeking for a declaration that the action of respondents 1 and 2 in giving first rank to the third respondent for appointment as the dealer pursuant Exhibit P1 is illegal and unconstitutional Petitioner nan also sought for a direction to respondent 1 and 2 to produce the final select list for appointment of the third respondent as the dealer at Nedumbassery pursuant to Exhibit P1 and to quash the ranking given to the third respondent. Petitioner also sought for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be assigned first rank for appointment and for issuance of appropriate directions for grant of letter of intent for starting the retail outlet, to the petitioner forthwith. There is a further prayer for stay of all further proceedings for issuance of letter of intent to the third respondent for starting the retail outlet pursuant to Exhibit P1. Petitioner had initially obtained an interim order of stay in CMP 11542/02 on 7.3.2002. The same was later modified by order dated 22.3.2002. to the extent that the grant shall be subject to the result of the O.P. The retail outlet at Nedumbassery was being directly conducted by the second respondent Corporation. Subsequent to the modification of the interim order letter of intent to conduct the retail outlet was issued to the third respondent on 25.3.2002 and the third respondent was appointed accordingly. Third respondent has also commenced the retail outlet on 30.3.2002.

2A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Along with the counter they have produced true copies of : (1) the declaration of annual income, (2) certificate issued by the Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, (3) proceedings dated 22.4.2002 issued by the first respondent on the basis of the complaint, Exhibit P8, made by the petitioner. It is stated in the counter affidavit that as required in the eligibility Criteria the third respondent has produced a certificate issued by the Commissioner of Police, Kochi City certifying the third respondent to be a resident of the Ernakulam District and the claim of the third respondent. was assessed on the basis of the documents produced by her. So far as the income is concerned, it is stated that the third respondent has produced a duly Notarised declaration to the effect that he; income was within the limits prescribed in the notification. It is also stated the petitioner had also produced only documents of the nature produced by the third respondent, and that on receipt of Exhibits P8