LAXMANLAL MEENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT no. 3 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. invited proposals through applications for appointing Distributor in the town of Partabnagar Dist. Chittorgarh. These applications were invited in open category.

(2.) AFTER scrutiny the persons who had applied were called for interview by respondent no. 4, i.e. Oil Selection Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The petitioners who had applied in consequence to the advertisement appeared for the interview on 8th July, 1994 and vide communication dated 21st September, 1994 the petitioners were informed about their non -selection. It is said in the petition that respondent no. 5 was selected though he was not qualified to be considered for the Distributor -ship.

(3.) THE second objection that has been raised by the learned Counsel is that respondent no. 5 was not within the required income group. For this purpose a certificate Annex. 8 has been pressed in service alleging that respondent no. 5 was dis -qualified as income of his family wa more than 50.000/ - during the last year.