M. S. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited based on the recommendation of the Dealer Selection Board, Ahmedabad, to award LPG distributorship in favour of respondent no. 3. ( 2 ) THE Indian Oil Corporation Limited had published an advertisement in the newspapers dated 13. 6. 1998 inviting applications for LPG distributorship at five places in the districts of Baroda and Bharuch. The subject matter of the present petition is LPG distributorship for Vaghodia in Baroda District. The dealership was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate residing in the districts Vadodara, Godhra, Dahod, Nadiad, Narmada and Bharuch. The petitioner, respondent no. 3 and other persons applied for the distributorship in response to the advertisement. The Petitioner and respondent no. 3 had applied for the LPG distributorship for Vaghodia area. The Dealer Selection Board comprised of the following personnel:- @@@ (i) a Retired Judge of this Court -Chairman (ii) officer not below the rank of Chief manager of concerned Oil Company - Member (ii) officer not below the rank of chief Manager of another Oil Company - Member ( 3 ) THE Selection Board recommended the name of respondent no. 3 for the dealership at Vaghodia. The Indian Oil Corporation accordingly issued letter of intent to respondent no. 3 on 4. 3. 1999. The present petition was filed on 22. 3. 1999 to challenge the said decision of respondent no. 2 based on the recommendation of the respondent no. 1. ( 4 ) MR H. R. Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged the following contentions:- (I) Respondent no. 3 had more income than permitted by the relevant terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement i. e. Rs. 2 lakhs. (II) As per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, preference was required to be given to the petitioner as the petitioner is an unmarried lady belonging to a Scheduled Tribe and is also a physically handicapped lady aged about 44 years and her parents have expired. Therefore, she should have been given the benefit of condition no. 5. (III) Respondents nos. 1 and 2 acted arbitrarily in selecting respondent no. 3 without giving any reason why respondent no. 3 has been selected though the petitioner was considered to be eligible. Therefore, she should have been given the benefit of condition no. 5. (III) Respondents nos. 1 and 2 acted arbitrarily in selecting respondent no. 3 without giving any reason why respondent no. 3 has been selected though the petitioner was considered to be eligible. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the stand of the respondents in the affidavit-in-reply is that the income of respondent no. 3 did not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs. It is pointed out on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation that as per guidelines the candidate has to make declaration of the annual income and submit the statement of annual income supported by the affidavit. As per the merit panel prepared by Dealer Selection Board which was conveyed to the IOC respondent no. 3 was ranked first in the list. As per the guidelines the field investigation of respondent no. 3 was also conducted by the IOC. The purpose of such field investigation is to verify the accuracy of the factual data as given by the candidate in the application form. The field investigation did not reveal any discrepancy or contradictions to the factual data stated in the application form of respondent no. 3. It was thereafter that the letter of intent was issued to respondent no. 3 on 4/03/1999 ( 6 ) IT is stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no. 3 that the income of husband of respondent no. 3 was Rs. 57,552 and that as per the application form filled in by respondent no. 3, income for the purpose of eligibility included the income of respondent no. 3, her spouse and dependent children. It is further stated that respondent no. 3 is not dependent on her parents and therefore question of taking into consideration the income of her parents did not arise. ( 7 ) ON the basis of the material on record, there is nothing on record to indicate that respondent no. 3 had income of more than Rs. 2 lakhs or more or that she was ineligible for the dealership in question. Hence, the first contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. ( 8 ) AS regards the second contention of the petitioner that she ought to have been given preference because she is an unmarried lady without parents, condition no. 2 lakhs or more or that she was ineligible for the dealership in question. Hence, the first contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. ( 8 ) AS regards the second contention of the petitioner that she ought to have been given preference because she is an unmarried lady without parents, condition no. 5 of the advertisement giving such preference makes it clear that such preference is to be given for dealership reserved for women. However, the dealership in question was not reserved for women but was reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe category. Both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 applied for dealership. Merely because both the competing candidates happen to be women, preference clause meant for distributorship for women could not be invoked. There is no dispute that respondent no. 3 belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and she is residing in Baroda District. Hence, there was no basis to consider respondent no. 3 ineligible on any ground. ( 9 ) THE next contention is about the merits of the selection. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation reference is made to several decisions of this Court where selection of dealers were made pursuant to the recommendations of the Dealer Selection Board. The selection procedure of the Dealer Selection Board was also considered by this Court in several decisions cited in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit-in-reply of Indian Oil Corporation. In all such decisions the selection procedure adopted by the Dealers Selection Board has been held to be proper and it is settled legal position that this Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the respondent-authority. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once both the petitioner as well as respondent no. 3 have been shown to be eligible, the burden is on the respondent-authorities to justify the selection of respondent no. 3. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Dealers Selection Board it is pointed out that the Dealers Selection Board has considered all relevant norms and taken the final decision as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. 3. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Dealers Selection Board it is pointed out that the Dealers Selection Board has considered all relevant norms and taken the final decision as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Since this Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the respondent-authority and since the decision of the respondent-authority is shown to have been based on the recommendation of the Dealers Selection Board and since no allegations are made against the members of the Selection Board, it is not for this Court to weigh the relevant factors in favour or against any particular candidate. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner proceeds on an assumption that once the candidates are found to be eligible, they must be treated to be equal and the respondent-authorities must justify why one candidate is selected and not the other. The fallacy lies in the assumption that merely because the candidates are eligible, they are also equal. The eligibility is merely to bring the candidates within the zone of consideration and the Selection Board is required to examine the comparative merits/demerits of the individual candidates. The very fact that the selection is not to be done by draw of lots but it is to be done at the hands of a duly constituted selection committee means that one candidate would be more meritorious or deserving than another and the function of the committee is to judge the inter se merits of the eligible candidates. The Dealer Selection Board, consisting of highly placed responsible persons, which has been appointed specifically for the purpose of selecting dealers for LPG distributorship and other similar dealerships, has considered the applications of all the eligible candidates and recommended the name of respondent no. 3 on the merit panel. Once that exercise is undertaken by the Selection Board and it is not shown to have been done in violation of any rules or norms or based on any mala fide or extraneous considerations, this Court is not to call upon the Selection Board to show why candidate "x" is selected and not candidate "y"? 3 on the merit panel. Once that exercise is undertaken by the Selection Board and it is not shown to have been done in violation of any rules or norms or based on any mala fide or extraneous considerations, this Court is not to call upon the Selection Board to show why candidate "x" is selected and not candidate "y"? ( 10 ) THE last contention raised by Mr Prajapati for the petitioner is that the condition in the advertisement that only those who are residing in Vadodara, Godhra, Dahod, Nadiad, Narmada and Bharuch districts are eligible is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The said contention is sought to be raised through the draft amendment. It is not necessary to examine this contention because in the facts of the present case the same has no significance. The petitioner herself is coming from Narmada District and was considered to be eligible and it is nowhere the case of the IOC or the Dealer Selection Board that the selection of respondent no. 3 was on account of her residence in Bharuch and non-selection of the petitioner was on account of her residence in Narmada District. In this view of the matter, the question sought to be raised is merely academic and is not required to be decided in the facts of this case. ( 11 ) NO other contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner. ( 12 ) IN view of the above discussion, the petition is rejected. Notice is discharged. Ad interim stay granted earlier by this Court on 7. 4. 1999 and continued from time to time is hereby vacated. ( 13 ) CIVIL Application No. 4574 of 1999 filed by respondent no. 3 for vacating the interim relief does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. .