Judgment 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to set aside the order dated 8-4-1994 passed by respondent No. 1 and to issue an appropriate writ or direction commanding respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to issue letter of indent in favour of the petitioners in respect of distributorship of L. P. G. (Indane) at Mango in Jamshedpur. 2. To decide the controversy raised in this petition, it is necessary to State the material facts in brief.The Indian Oil Corporation, a Government of India undertaking, under the Ministry of Petroleum, made an advertisement on 28-2-1988 for selection and appointment of L.P.G. distributors under the open category for Mango in Jamshedpur town and other places in the State of Bihar. In the said advertisement the eligibility criteria of the persons to be appointed such as nationality, age, education, domicile, permanent residence, annual income etc. were laid down. In response to the said advertisement, both the petitioners as partners made an application for distributorship of L. P. G. (Indane) at Mango since they satisfied all eligibility criteria mentioned in the said advertisement the Oil Selection Board (East) thereafter by the call letter dated 28-3-1990 asked the petitioners and other candidates to appear at the interview for selection at Jamshedpur on 13-9-1990. In the call letter all necessary documents particularly documents in support of the educational qualification, date of birth etc. were asked to be produced in original at the interview on 13-9-1990. The petitioners appeared in the interview on the date fixed before the Oil Selection Board (East) and they were thoroughly interviewed and they produced all necessary documents to the satisfaction of the Board. According to the petitioners, they secured 1st position in the interview and that in the month of October, 1990, two representatives of the Indian Oil Corporation came for field inspection of the premises where office-cum-godown of distributorship would be located, should the petitioners be finally selected. The site offered by the petitioners for the office and godown for carrying on the distribution was found to be satisfactory. The petitioners, therefore, expected letters of intent to be issued in their favour shortly. The site offered by the petitioners for the office and godown for carrying on the distribution was found to be satisfactory. The petitioners, therefore, expected letters of intent to be issued in their favour shortly. However, in the month of November, 1990 the Oil Selection Board all over India were dissolved due to which no formal order of selection and consequent letter of intent could be issued. After three years the Oil Selection Board for Bihar was reconstituted which became a successor to the earlier Oil Selection Board (East) which made selection of distributors on 13th September, 1990. By the letter dated 2nd August, 1993, the respondent No. 1, the subsequent Selection Board, Bihar, asked the candidates who were empanelled securing first, second and third position in the select list on the basis of interview held on 13-9-1990 for distributorship, to appear before the Oil Selection Board on 19th August, 1993 at Hotel Patliputra Ashok, Patna. The petitioners stated on oath in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that in the said letter dated 2nd August, 1993 there was no indication that the petitioners were called for interview for fresh selection by the Selection Board on 19th August, 1993 and on reaching there on 19th August, 1993, the petitioners were informed that the purpose was only to verify whether after such a long gap of three years, the holders of the top positions (lst, 2nd and 3rd) were still available to take the letter of intent or not and that on being asked by the Oil Selection Board, the petitioners expressed their willingness to accept the distributorship at Mango. Thereafter the petitioners were waiting eagerly for the letters of intent. After waiting for two months the petitioners made a representation on 5th November, 1993 before respondent No. 1, the Oil Selection Board. But finding no response to the representation, the petitioners approached this Court in a writ petition registered as C. W. J. C. No. 396 of 1994 before this Court. This Court by the order dated 9-2-1994 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider and dispose of the petitioners representation dated 5th November, 1993 by a speaking order with the observation that if aggrieved by the order to be passed in the representation the petitioners would be at liberty to approach this Court. After the order was passed the petitioner made a supplementary representation before the Board on 23-2-1994 enclosing the copy of the order passed by this Court, challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 as distributor of Indian Oil L. P. G. (Indane) at Mango. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 8-4-1994 rejected the representation of the petitioners. 3. Paragraph 2 of the impugned order dated 8-4-1994 is as follows : "In short there was an interview on 13-9-1990 and on that day Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh and Sri Bharat Bhushan Singh secured the highest marks whereas Miss. Inderjit Kalsey and Sri Tara Chand Agarwal were placed on 2nd and 3rd positions respectively. FIRs were called for by the Board but before the FIR could reach, the Board was dissolved and the matter remain undecided. Thereafter the matter was placed before the new Board presided over by Hon ble Chairman, Justice B. Prasad (Retd.) and it called for interview of lst, 2nd and 3rd position empanelled candidates of 17 locations and the present location i. e. Mango was one of these 17 locations. Accordingly, Notices were issued on 1st, 2nd and 3rd position empanelled candidates of the 17 locations for interview to appear before the Board and pursuant to the letter/ notices all the 3 empanelled candidates appeared in respect of location Mango. There was a sheet for attendance-cum-verification of documents which was prepared on 19-8-1993 and on the production of the said sheet where all the parties including Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh and Sri Bharat Bhushan Singh were present and put their signature and thereafter the previous Oil Selection Board, Bihar reassessed the said parties and according to the Board, Sri Tara Chand Agarwal had secured the highest marks and thereafter the concerned Oil Company issued the appointment letter (Letter of Intent). In this process the present petitioners, Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh and Sri Bharat Bhushan Singh were placed in the 3rd position. Since the present petitioner was placed in the 3rd position they were not appeared in the merit panel because of the change of the procedure. " 4. The petitioners, after passing (sic) of the impugned order dated 8-4-1994, have approached this Court in this writ petition. Since the present petitioner was placed in the 3rd position they were not appeared in the merit panel because of the change of the procedure. " 4. The petitioners, after passing (sic) of the impugned order dated 8-4-1994, have approached this Court in this writ petition. In an application for amendment of pleading of the petition, the petitioners have challenged the letter of Intent dated 21-9-1993 issued in favour of respondent No. 5 appointing him for distributor of L. P. G. (Indane) at Mango and the prayer for amendment has been allowed. According to the petitioners, after the petitioners were selected for appointment of distribution of L. P. G. (Indane) at Mango securing the first position on the basis of the interview held on 13-9-1990, the reconstituted Oil Selection Board acted arbitrarily, illegally and without jurisdiction in reviewing the selection of the empanelled candidates who secured first, second and third position and disturbing the panel by putting the petitioners in third position and respondent No. 5 who secured third position at the first position. Once the selection was started according to the Rules/guidelines as it stood on 13-9-1990, the process of selection ought to have been completed on the basis of the said Rules/ guidelines since the subsequent amendment of guidelines for selection was not made retrospective. It is apparent from the letter dated 2-8-1993 issued by respondent No. 1 asking the petitioners and others candidates empanelled by the earlier Selection Board to appear before respondent No. 1 on 19-8-1993, did not at all indicate that the petitioners were to be interviewed for selection afresh. By the letter dated 2-8-1993, apparently the petitioners were not asked to appear for selection with the relevant documents in support of their educational qualification, date of birth etc. Assignment of the first position to respondent No. 5 and lowering the petitioners position from lst to 3rd by the reconstituted Selection Board is illegal and arbitrary. As such, the respondents are liable to be directed to issue letter of intent in favour of the petitioners in respect of distributorship at Mango on the basis of selection made as per interview dated 13-9-1990. 5. As such, the respondents are liable to be directed to issue letter of intent in favour of the petitioners in respect of distributorship at Mango on the basis of selection made as per interview dated 13-9-1990. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on 11-1-1995 the respondent No. 1 contended that the letter of intent could be issued by the particular oil company followed by a letter of appointment only on the basis of selection made by the respondent No. 1, the Oil Selection Board. In the instant case, the interview was held on 13-9-1990 by respondent No. 1 and on the basis of the interview three candidates were empanelled including the petitioners for further consideration on the basis of Field Investigation Report but before the Field Investigation Report could be considered by it for making final selection, the Oil Selection Board stood dissolved by the order of the Ministry of Petroleum. As a result, the selection process could not be completed. The Selection Board was thereafter reconstituted in February, 1993 on Statewise basis instead of Zonal basis. Respondent No. 1 after reconstitution, instead of issuing fresh advertisement decided to call only the empanelled candidates made by the previous board for a fresh interview for selection of distributors/dealers. This was done in respect of 17 locations in Bihar including Mango. The petitioners appeared on 19-8-1993 and in the said interview respondent No. 5 secured lst position while the petitioners secured the third position. There being no requirement of consideration of Field Investigation Report, the respondent No. 5 was selected and a letter of intent was issued on his favour. It is further contended that as per the guidelines the names of candidates empanelled on the basis of the interview held on 13-9-1990 were forwarded to the concerned Oil Company with a direction to carry out Field Investigation Report and to submit report. The list of candidates was sent in alphabetical order and the marks obtained in the interview by each of the empanelled candidates were not disclosed. In paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, respondent No. 1 further contended that even assuming that the petitioners secured the highest marks in the interview held on 13-9-1990, that by itself was not conclusive in as much as per the terms of the earlier policy decision, final selection was to be made after consideration of the Field Investigation Report. In paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, respondent No. 1 further contended that even assuming that the petitioners secured the highest marks in the interview held on 13-9-1990, that by itself was not conclusive in as much as per the terms of the earlier policy decision, final selection was to be made after consideration of the Field Investigation Report. As such, securing highest marks in the interview was of no consequence and no legal right accrued on the petitioners. 6. In rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, the petitioners have contended that the statements of the petitioners made in paragraph 23 of the writ petition that the letters of intent were issued on the basis of selection made as per the interview dated 13-9-1990 in respect of retail outlet at zero mile at Barauni of Hindustan Petroleum and Amour retail outlet, both in the State of Bihar, are not disputed. As such, denial of distributorship to the petitioners, when they secured first position in the select list and when the Field Investigation Report was also in their favour, is arbitrary and discriminatory. Respondent No. 1 in the second rejoinder to the reply clarified that in respect of the aforesaid two local (sic) the Field Investigations (sic) were completed and in a (sic) received before dissolution of the previous Selection Board which made a final selection but before the selection could be communicated the said Board was dissolved and for that reason the subsequent Oil Selection Board enforced the previous selection and the letters of intent were issued. In the case of distributorship at Mango in Jamshedpur, selection was incomplete, when the previous Selection Board was dissolved. 7. Respondent No. 5 in the counter affidavit amongst others stated that he was also a candidate and was empanelled along with two others after the interview was held on 13-9-1990 by the Oil Selection Board and the names of empanelled candidates were prepared and sent in alphabetical order. Before the Field Investigation Report could be forwarded to the Oil Selection Board for final selection, the said Board was dissolved in November, 1990. Before the Field Investigation Report could be forwarded to the Oil Selection Board for final selection, the said Board was dissolved in November, 1990. In the year 1993, the reconstituted Oil Selection Board, Bihar, issued fresh notice for interview fixing 19-8-1993 and in that interview respondent No. 5 as well as the petitioners appeared in the Hotel Patliputra, Patna and in the interview respondent No. 5 secured first position and thereafter on 1-10-1993 this respondent has received the letter of intent for appointment dated 21-9-1993 for L. P. G. distributorship for Mango and thereafter he obtained licences under various laws for carrying the business of distributorship of L. P. G. Respondent No. 5 further contended that he constructed special and big godown for storing L. P. G. cylinders and also furnished show room for the purpose of conducting business and has already spent more than Rs. 6 lacs and that for last several months he has been distributing L. P. G. cylinders to the consumers. Respondent No. 5 has annexed a copy of the letter of intent marked as Annexure R/5 to the counter affidavit. 8. Respondent No. 3, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, and respondent No. 4, the Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, in the counter affidavit filed on 10-2-1995 amongst others contended that in the instant case the list of the candidates empanelled on the basis of the interview dated 13-9-1990, was forwarded to the office of respondent No. 4 for Field Investigation and the list was prepared in alphabetical order. A copy of the list is annexed as Annexure A to the counter affidavit. Since the list was prepared in alphabetical order it was not known to the Officers of the Indian Oil Corporation as to who had secured the highest marks at the interview. It was the duty of the Officers of the Indian Oil Corporation to conduct Field Investigation with utmost objectivity in respect of all the empanelled candidates. In the present case Field Investigation was conducted in respect of all the empanelled candidates. The final selection was to be made after receipt of the Field Investigation Report. The Oil Selection Board would then direct the Oil Company to issue the letter of intent to the candidates whose name figured at the top of the merit list. In the present case Field Investigation was conducted in respect of all the empanelled candidates. The final selection was to be made after receipt of the Field Investigation Report. The Oil Selection Board would then direct the Oil Company to issue the letter of intent to the candidates whose name figured at the top of the merit list. Before final selection was made, the question of granting Investigation Report could be considered, the entire process of selection remained inoperative. The Oil Selection Board was reconstituted in the year 1993, and the procedure for selection was changed in terms of the policy decision of the Ministry of Petroleum. Under the subsequent procedure for selection of distributor, Field Investigation has been dispensed with and selection is made on the basis of marks awarded at the interview. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that change in the procedure for selection by notification dated 17-10-1990 having not made retrospective the selection of L. P. G. (Indane) distributorship at Mango ought to have been completed as per the procedure which stood at the time of commencement of the selection. Respondent No. 1 after reconstitution no doubt could cancel the selection made as per the interview dated 13-9-1990 and proceed to make selection afresh on the basis of advertisement. But in the instant case only the candidates who were empanelled by the Selection Board on the basis of interview dated 13-9-1990 were asked to appear before the Selection Board again on 19-8-1993 at Hotel Patliputra, Patna, and the selection made on 13-9-1990 was changed by upgrading 3rd position holder to 1st and lowering 1st position holder to 3rd. In support of the contention learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1990 SC 405 . In support of the contention learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1990 SC 405 . Drawing my attention to the call letter dated 20-8-1990 asking the petitioners and other candidates to appear at the interview dated 13-9-1990 and the letter dated 2-8-1993 asking the empanelled candidates to appear before respondent No. 1 at Hotel Patliputra, Patna on 19-8-1993 learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subsequent letter dated 2-8-1993 was not a call letter for interview inasmuch as in the said letter the petitioners were not asked to produce the documents in support of their age, educational qualification and other eligibility criteria and the subject-matter of the letter dated 2-8-1993 also did not indicate that it was a letter of interview for selection of distributorship, whereas in the call letter dated 20-8-1990 the subject-matter of the call letter was interview for selection of distributorship of L.P.G. (Indane) and the petitioners and other candidates were asked to come with all original documents in support of the eligibility including certificates in proof of age and educational qualification. Moreover, the petitioners statement on oath that on reaching at Hotel Patliputra, Patna on 19th August, 1993, the petitioners were informed that the purpose for calling them to appear was only to verify whether after such a long gap of three years the holders of top positions were still available to take a letter of intent or not, has not been denied. From the letter dated 2-8-1993 it is apparent that the petitioners were not asked to appear at the interview with all relevant documents and the question of examination of the eligibility on the basis of the documents etc. on 19-8-1993 could not and did not arise. As such, respondent No. 1 acted arbitrarily, illegally and without jurisdiction in changing the position of the select list as per the marks obtained in the interview dated 13-9-1990 by putting down the petitioners from 1st position to 3rd and upgrading respondent No. 5 from 3rd to 1st position. on 19-8-1993 could not and did not arise. As such, respondent No. 1 acted arbitrarily, illegally and without jurisdiction in changing the position of the select list as per the marks obtained in the interview dated 13-9-1990 by putting down the petitioners from 1st position to 3rd and upgrading respondent No. 5 from 3rd to 1st position. The petitioners stated on oath, in paragraph 13 of the petition that following the interview held on 13-9-1990 in the month of October or November, 1990, two representatives of the Indian Oil Corporation came for Field Investigation and the premises for establishment of the agency offered by the petitioners was found to be satisfactory. In other words the Field Investigation Report had been in favour of the petitioners. All these facts are not denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. In fact the Field Investigation Report was received by the Selection Board but before they could consider and make a final select list, the Board was dissolved. As such, the petitioners having admittedly secured the first position in the interview and undisputedly the Field Investigation Report was also in their favour, the petitioners, no doubt would have secured first position in the final select list for distributorship of L.P.G. gas at Mango. In case the final selection was made as per the change made in the procedure by dispensing with Field Investigation Report, the petitioners who secured first position in the interview would have secured 1st position in the final select list in respect of distributorship instead of respondent No. 5. As such, selection of respondent No. 5 instead of the petitioners is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the Oil Selection Board headed by a retired Judge of the High Court after interview held on 19th August, 1993 made selection and in the select list respondent No. 5 secured the first position and was appointed as distributor of L.P.G.gas. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Selection Board made on 19-3-1993 was arbitrary or vitiated by mala fide or extraneous consideration. The earlier Oil Selection Board before completion of selection having dissolved in 1990, there is nothing wrong on the part of the subsequent Oil Selection Board to consider the matter and make selection after fresh interview. As such, no interference is called for. The earlier Oil Selection Board before completion of selection having dissolved in 1990, there is nothing wrong on the part of the subsequent Oil Selection Board to consider the matter and make selection after fresh interview. As such, no interference is called for. In support of the contention learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Computers Limited V/s. M/s. M and N Publications Limited, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 445 . Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 further submitted that the respondent No. 1 was competent to make selection according to the procedure after change thereof. In support of the contention learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. V/s. Raghuveer Singh Yadav, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 151 . 12. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that after getting the letter of intent he has invested the considerable amount of Rs. 6 lacs and started distributing L.P.G. gas cylinder to the consumers before the petitioners approached this Court in this petition. The petitioners made inordinate delay in approaching this Court and that even if the selection of the respondent No. 1 as per interview dated 19-18-1993 was irregular, because of laches on the part of the petitioners and respondent No. 5 having already invested the huge amount of money, this Court may not grant discretionary relief in the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of the contention learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. V/s. Nandlal Jaiswal, reported in AIR 1987 SC 251 . 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials on records. 14. Admittedly at the time of advertisement made in the year 1990 the selection for distributors was to be made as per the policy guidelines for selection of dealers and distributors which is annexed as Annexure E to the counter-affidavit filed on 10-4-1995. In the Guidelines the qualification and eligibility criteria has been mentioned. The selection procedure as per the said Guidelines was as follows :"VI. Selection procedure. In the Guidelines the qualification and eligibility criteria has been mentioned. The selection procedure as per the said Guidelines was as follows :"VI. Selection procedure. Constitution of Selection Boards Selection of Dealers/Distributors of Oil Companies is being made by the duly constituted Selection Boards consisting of the following :i) One retired High Court Judge (Chairman) ii) One retired Senior Civil Servant (Member) At present there are four such Selection Boards in the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western Regions of the Companies. The headquarters of these Boards are in Delhi, Madras, Calcutta and Ahmedabad respectively. 15. Screening of application/interviewsApplications of all candidates, on receipt from the Divisional Offices/Regional Offices of the concerned Oil Company, are screened by the Selection Boards for final decision regarding eligibility/ineligibility of the candidates. The Selection Boards, thereafter issue call letters to all eligible candidates giving adequate notice (generally 15 days) to appear before them for the interview. 16. Norms for evaluation of candidatesAt the time of interview, the inter se evaluation of the candidates belonging to the specified category would be made by the Selection Boards taking into account the following factors.i) Business abilityii) Salesmanship iii) Capability to provide the required facilities within the stipulated period iv) Full time working dealerv) Extra curricular activities vi) personality vii) Outstanding sportsmen/sportswomen who have represented the country in international eventsviii) Capacity to arrange finance*ix) General assessment *Inadequacy of personal finance would not be a ground for disqualification if the candidate is otherwise found suitable. 17. Field investigationAfter interviewing the candidates, the Selection Boards would empanel a maximum 3 candidates found suitable for the award of respective dealership/distributorship. The list would be prepared in alphabetical order and handed over to the concerned Divisional Office for Field Investigation. At the time of field investigation, the statements made by the candidates in their application forms regarding income, availability of land and facilities for godown, show room etc. are verified. 18. Selection for dealers/distributorsa) On completion of the field investigation, the Divisional Offices would send one copy of the Field Investigation Report (under registered A.D.) to the concerned Selection Board, which will then formulate its final list, in order of merit, in respect of dealership/ distributorship.b) On receipt of the final recommendations from the Selection Board the concerned oil company will take necessary action for issuing the letter of intent to the candidate empanelled at Serial No. 1 in order of merit. 19. 19. Commissioning of the Dealership/ DistributorshipA person who has been given the letter of intent would be required to fulfil the conditions as laid down therein viz. arrangement of finance, suitable land, show room etc. within a period of four months so as to enable him/her to commission the dealership/distributorship within the stipulated time period." 20. The Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals, Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas by the Notification No. P-19011/9/90/ IOC dated 17-10-1990 made certain changes in the procedure for selection of candidates by the Oil Selection Boards for retail outlets dealerships and L.P.G. distributorship which is as follows :"1. After careful consideration it has been decided to make the following changes in the existing procedure for selection of candidates by the Oil Selection Boards for retail outlets (MS/HSD) dealerships, and LPG/kerosene distributorships :(i) The Field Investigation Report (FIR) stage in the existing selection procedure is abolished.(ii) The Oil Selection Boards shall recommend to the Oil Companies a panel of two names, in order of merit, immediately after the interviews for a particular dealership/ distributorship are over. (iii) The Oil Company, shall issue LOI to the first empanelled candidate immediately on receipt of the recommendation of the Oil Selection Board.(iv) In case the first empanelled candidate is disqualified for any valid reason, the LOI shall be issued to the second candidate recommended by the OSB, without any delay.(v) In case the second selected candidate in the merit list is also disqualified for any valid reason the location shall be re-advertised for fresh selection. 21. The revised application forms and affidavits shall be applicable in respect of all new advertisements. 22. The revised procedure of selection as prescribed herein shall come into force with immediate effect."It is apparent from the contents of the notification dated 17-10-1990 that the procedure for selection as per the guideline has been changed to the extent of abolishing necessity of the Field Report for final selection and selection is to be made only on the basis of marks obtained in the interview and instead of three, the Oil Selection Board is required to recommend two candidates. 23. 23. Although, it is contended in the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 1 that after the interview dated 13-9-1990, a list of the empanelled candidates was sent in alphabetical order and marks obtained in the interview were not disclosed, however, from the impugned order, it is abundantly clear that in the interview held on 13-9-1990, the petitioners secured the top positions, whereas, Miss. Inderjit Kalsey and Sri Tara Chand Agarwal (respondent No. 5) were placed in the second and third position, respectively, according to the marks obtained by them. From the guidelines, it is clear that the field investigation is made with a view to ascertaining the following facts : income, availability of land and facilities for godown, show room etc. offered by the empanelled applicants. Apparently, on the basis of the Field Investigation Report, no additional marks was to be added to the total marks obtained in the interview; inasmuch as in case the Field Investigation Report disclosed anything adverse in respect of any of the aforesaid facts after investigation, even if a candidate got highest marks in the interview, he would not be finally selected. Undisputedly, the Field Investigation Report was in favour of the petitioners and there was nothing adverse against them. As such having secured the first position, the petitioners would have got first position in the final select list in respect of distributorship of L.P.G. (Indane) at Mango in Jamshedpur, had the selection been completed as per the rules/procedures, which stood at the time of commencement of the selection process i.e. on 13-9-1990. From the records, it appears that the Field Investigation Report was received on 28-11-1990. However, before the Field Investigation Report could be considered and the final selection made by the previous Selection Board, it stood dissolved. It is not the case of the respondents that after reconstitution of the Oil Selection Board in the year 1993, the selection commenced on the basis of the interview dated 13-9-1990, was cancelled or selection was made afresh on the basis of the guidelines after change made by notification dated 17-10-1990. It is not the case of the respondents that after reconstitution of the Oil Selection Board in the year 1993, the selection commenced on the basis of the interview dated 13-9-1990, was cancelled or selection was made afresh on the basis of the guidelines after change made by notification dated 17-10-1990. Had it been so, the question of confining the selection only amongst the empanelled candidates could not have arisen and there should have either been (i) fresh advertisement inviting applications, or (ii) all the applicants, who applied in response to the previous advertisement made in 1988, would (sic) to have been called for interview for fresh selection. In the case of Mahendra ( AIR 1990 SC 405 ) (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that when amendment of Rules is not made retrospective, the selection process once commenced under the Rules existing at the material time, has to be completed in accordance with the said Rules as it stood at the time of commencement. In the instant case, the change made in the procedure for selection by notification dated 17-10-1990 after the selection process commenced and the interview was concluded on 13-9-1990, was not retrospective. As such, as per the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the selection process commenced on 13-9-1990, ought to have been completed on the basis of the procedures/rules as these stood at the time of commencement of the selection process i.e. on 13-9-1990. 24. As already observed, the only change brought about by the notification dated 17-10-1990 in the procedure was abolition of the Field Investigation Report and the selection was to be made as per the marks obtained by the candidates in interview. 24. As already observed, the only change brought about by the notification dated 17-10-1990 in the procedure was abolition of the Field Investigation Report and the selection was to be made as per the marks obtained by the candidates in interview. Even if, on the basis of the changed procedure, selection was to be completed, the petitioners, who admittedly secured highest marks in the interview, would have got first position in the final select list for grant of distributorship of L.P.G. (Indane) at Mango in Jamshedpur by the reconstituted Oil Selection Board.After receipt of the Field Investigation Report, which undisputedly was in favour of the petitioners, only task left for the previous Board, was to give final touch to the selection and that in view of the fact that the petitioners had secured highest marks in the interview undoubtedly, they would have secured first position in the final select list.Admittedly, letters of intents were issued on the basis of selection made as per the interview dated 13-9-1990 and the Field Investigation Report, in respect of retail outlet at Barauni of Hindustan Petroleum and Amour retail outlet, in the State of Bihar. On behalf of respondent No. 1, distinction has been sought to be made in respect of the aforesaid two locations, contenting, inter alia, that in those cases after receipt of the Field Investigation Reports, the previous Selection Board made final selection but before issuing formal order of final selection, the said Board was dissolved and for that reason, the subsequent Oil Selection Board endorsed the previous selection and the letters of intent were issued, whereas, in the instant case, before the selection could be completed by the previous Selection Board it was dissolved. In my opinion, there is little difference between the case of aforesaid two locations and the case of the petitioners; inasmuch as the Field Investigation had already been made and the report was submitted in the case of the petitioners and only the final touch was to be given by the previous Selection Board, but the final touch to the Select List could not be given by the previous Selection Board because of its sudden dissolution after the receipt of the Field Investigation Report.. When the previous Selection Board could not find time and give final touch to the selection, the reconstituted Board ought to have given a final touch to the selection on the basis of the Field Investigation Report available on record. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the reconstituted Oil Selection Board was competent to make fresh selection in respect of distributorship of L.P.G. (Indane) at Mango in Jamshedpur and other stations even after receipt of the Field Investigation Report, on the basis of interview confining selection to the candidates empanelled by the previous Selection Board. 25. To appreciate the contention of the petitioners that by letter dated 2-8-1993, the petitioners were not asked to appear for interview before respondent No. 1 on 19-8-1993 for fresh selection, but to ascertain as to whether after lapse of three years, the empanelled candidates were still willing and ready to accept the letters of intent, it is appropriate to quote the call letter dated the 2nd of August, 1993, which is annexed as Annexure 3 to the instant writ petition :- "Sri Bharat Bhushan Singh Qr. No. L-5/16, Road No. 2, 26 H. Area, Kadma, REF:P/OSB/ MangoJamshedpur, Pin-831005. Dtd. 2-8-93.Sub. L.P.G. Distributorship at Mango of I.O.C.Dear Sir,You are hereby advised to appear before the Oil Selection Board (Bihar) at 1500 hrs. on 19-8-93 at the following address :Hotel Patliputra,Ashok Beerchand Patel Marg,Patna-800001.Yours faithfully,F/Oil Selection Board (Bihar)Sd/- Co-ordinator."Similar letter of the even date was also written to petitioner No. 1, which is marked as Annexure 3/A. 27. From the call-letter, it is apparent that it does not indicate that a fresh selection was going to be made after interview. Even the word interview is missing. The petitioners were simply asked to appear on 19-8-1993 at the place mentioned in the said letter. The petitioners were not asked to produce the School Leaving Certificate, Matriculation/ School Final H.S. Certificate, in original, etc. for verification of date of birth, academic qualification etc. Whereas, in the earlier call-letter dated 20-8-1990, which is annexed as Annexure-2, fixing 13-9-1990 for interview for the purpose of selection, the petitioners were asked to produce at the time of interview the School Leaving Certificate/Matriculation/School Final H.S. Certificate, in original, issued by the Board. for verification of date of birth, academic qualification etc. Whereas, in the earlier call-letter dated 20-8-1990, which is annexed as Annexure-2, fixing 13-9-1990 for interview for the purpose of selection, the petitioners were asked to produce at the time of interview the School Leaving Certificate/Matriculation/School Final H.S. Certificate, in original, issued by the Board. As for date of birth, the original Baptism Certificate or Date Admitted Certificate issued by L.I.C. was also acceptable. In the call-letter dated 20-8-1990 under the heading "Subjects", it was clearly stated "Interview for selection of L.P.G. Distributor under C category at Mango District Singhbhum, State of Bihar". That apart, the petitioners specific statement, made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that after reaching on 19-8-1993 at Hotel Patliputra, Patna, the petitioners were informed that the purpose was only to verify whether after such a long gap of three years, the holders of top positions were still available to take the letter of intent or not, has not been denied by Respondent No. 1. As such, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that by letter dated 2-8-1993, the petitioners were not called for any interview for the purpose of selection of distributorship of L. P. G. (Indane) at Mango in Jamshedpur and that selection , if any, said to have been made on the basis of the call-letter dated 2-8-1993, was not made as per the procedures laid down under the guideline, which was not changed by the notification dated 17-10-1990. Another question arises is that if as per call-letter dated 2-8-1993, the candidate having secured third position as per the selection made on 13-9-1990, could get first position, the candidate, who got 4th or 5th position or below could have also got first position after fresh interview if all the candidates, who offered their candidatures in response to the advertisement, were interviewed afresh. 28. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sterling Computers Limited (1993) 1 SCC 445 (supra), on which the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 placed reliance, has no application to the facts of the present case similarly, the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M. P., 1994-6 SCC 151 (supra) has also no application to the facts of the present case. 29. 29. For the reasons stated above, I have no hesitation to hold that Respondent No. 1 acted arbitrarily and illegally in not concluding the selection as per the procedure and rules as it stood at the time of commencement of the selection process when all the materials were available before it. The decision to make selection afresh confining candidature to the empanelled candidates was ex-facie arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction, and, as such the so-called selection made on the 19th of August, 1993, on the basis of the call-letter dated the 2nd of August, 1993, is equally arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 30. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 submitted that the petition should be dismissed for the laches on the part of the petitioners. But I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 that the petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches on the part of the petitioners. After 19th August, 1993, finding no response, the petitioners made a representation on 5-11-93 within two months, before the Respondent No. 1 but the representation having not been disposed of the petitioners approached this Court in the month of January, 1994, in C.W.J.C. No. 396 of 1994. This Court, by order dated 9th of February, 1994, disposed of the petition with a direction to Respondent No. 1 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 5th of November, 1993, by a speaking order and, thereafter, Respondent No. 1 disposed of the representation of the petitioners by order dated 8-4-1994 and soon thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court in the instant writ petition. As such, the petitioners have all along been vigilant and there is no laches on their part. 31. Although the selection of Respondent No. 5 made as per so-called interview dated 12th August, 1993, and consequential letters of intent are found arbitrary and illegal, in view of the fact that Respondent No. 5 has already invested Rs. Six lacs for construction of godown, office and show-room etc. and started distribution of gas-cylinders, it will cause great hardship and suffering to respondent No. 5, if the selection and consequential letters of intent issued in his favour are set aside. Six lacs for construction of godown, office and show-room etc. and started distribution of gas-cylinders, it will cause great hardship and suffering to respondent No. 5, if the selection and consequential letters of intent issued in his favour are set aside. The fact of investment of considerable money by respondent No. 5 was taken into consideration by respondent No. 1, while rejecting the representation of the petitioners by order dated 8-4-1994. But on the other hand, gross injustice has been caused to the petitioners by arbitrary selection of respondent No. 5. It has been brought to my notice by an application filed by the petitioners that the Indian Oil Corporation in an advertisement in the Newspaper, AAJ in its issue dated 28-8-1995, has invited applications for the purpose of appointment of distributors of L.P.G. gas in 2 locations in Jamshedpur - one at Sonari and another at Burma Mines, fixing 30-10-1995 as the last date of application. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I hold that the ends of justice will meet, if instead of disturbing the selection of Respondent No. 5 as per so-called interview dated 19-8-1993 and consequential letter of intent issued in his favour, the petitioners are awarded distributorship of L.P.G. (Indane) gas cylinder in respect of either of the two locations at Sonari or Burma Mines in Jamshedpur. 32. For the reasons stated above, allow this petition with direction to Respondents to issue letter of intent in respect of distributorship of L.P.G. (Indane) gas cylinder in favour of the petitioner either at Sonari or at Burma Mines in Jamshedpur. Usual selection need be made by respondent No. 1 in respect of the location, regarding which the letter of intent is to be issued in favour of the petitioner. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to cost. Petition allowed.