Eligibility criteria in public advertisements are sacrosanct. Internal guidelines for correcting deficiencies cannot override mandatory requirements—such as financial capacity within a defined family unit or land ownership—unless those guidelines are explicitly incorporated into the public notice.

ORDER :

DEEPAK KHOT, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

(i) A writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding the Respondents to cancel the allotment of LPG distributorship for place at S. No. 111 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 19.5.2012 under the RGGLV Distributorship Scheme for place Barauli, Tehsil Ajaygarh, District Panna in favour of Respondent No. 7;

(ia) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and be pleased to hold and declare that allotment of LPG distributorship for the place situated at S.No.111 in the advertisement dated 19.5.2012 under RGGLV distributorship scheme for place Barauli Tahsil Ajaygarh, District Panna in favour of respondent No.7 is illegal and be pleased to direct official respondents to issue the allotment order in favour of petitioner within a stipulated time as he is the sole candidate fulfilling the eligibility criteria and the requirements contemplated under the advertisement as well as the policy.

(ii) Call for the entire material record pertaining to instant controversy from the respondents for its kind perusal;

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be granted in favour of the petitioner; and

(iv) Cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioner.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent no.2 Indian Oil Corporation Limited had issued an advertisement on 19.05.2012, which was published in Hindi daily Dainik Bhaskar, Satna Edition, Page No.13, annexure P/1, for grant of distributorship under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Distribution Scheme (RGGLV), for the notified location Barauli, Tehsil Ajaygarh, District Panna under open category, mentioned at Serial No.111. Under Clause 4 of the advertisement, the said distributorship was reserved for Open Category candidates. Clause 14 specifically stipulated that the application form was required to be submitted along with all supporting documents and that no document other than those submitted with the application could be considered at any subsequent stage. Further, Clause 3(h) provides that the land offered for establishment of LPG godown must be suitable in all seasons, accessible to trucks for unloading LPG cylinders, and exclusively owned by the applicant. In compliance with the aforesaid terms and conditions of the advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application on 20.06.2012 along with the prescribed demand draft and all requisite documents and vide communication dated 25.07.2012, the petitioner’s application was accepted. Subsequently, vide communication dated 04.09.2012, the petitioner was informed that draw of lots was scheduled on 26.09.2012 between the petitioner and Respondent No.7 for selection of LPG distributor at Barauli. On coming to know that Respondent No.7 had not submitted land documents as required under Clause 3(h) and had furnished only a rent note/agreement instead of proof of exclusive ownership, the petitioner submitted objections dated 25.09.2012 and 20.10.2012 before the competent authorities objecting to his inclusion in the draw of lots. The communication dated 01.08.2012 further reveals that the land documents initially submitted by Respondent No.7 had been rejected by the competent authority and the respondent no.7 was allowed to rectify the default beyond the cut off date, i.e. 20.6.2012, which is contrary to the advertisement and he was allowed to participate in the selection process, pursuant to which he was declared successful. After obtaining information with regard to the candidature of the respondent no.7, the petitioner submitted a representation/complaint on 22.10.2012 before respondent no.5 with regard to ineligibility of respondent no.7 vide annexure P/11. Being aggrieved with the allotment of LPG Distributorship in favour of respondent no.7, the petitioner preferred instant petition, in which vide interim or