RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) -HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 2 ) NO one is present on behalf of Union of India, respondent No. 1. Sri Aanshu Chaudhary holding brief of Sri Vikas Budhwar is present on behalf of respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the typographical error in matter written as 41. 82 in para 13 whereas it should be as 41. 83 marks. ( 4 ) IT appears from the record that as per Clause 11 of the newspaper publication in Dainik Jagran dated 7. 9. 2007 appended as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition for allotment of retail outlet of L. P. G. gas for distribution of those candidates who obtained 40% marks and above marks shall be considered in priority in allotment. Clause 11 is as under :- "persons applying for different locations.-While one person can apply for different locations, the same should be done in separate application forms in respect of each location alongwith applicable application fee in each case. While any individual meeting the eligibility criteria as mentioned above can apply under open category, individuals can apply for any location reserved for a particular category only if the individual meets all the eligibility criteria specified for that category. " ( 5 ) THE petitioner claims that respondent No. 3 has obtained only 39% marks whereafter she obtained 41. 83 marks and as such is entitled to get letter of intent for L. P. G. distributorship on basis of priority in preference to respondent no. 3. ( 6 ) SRI Anshu Chaudhary has placed reliance on Clause 14. 2 Brochure of Hindustan Petroleum Gas Distributors for selection of L. P. G. gas effective from 1st July, 2007. Clause 14. 2 aforesaid is as follows :-"clause 14. 2.-Inter-se priority for "d. C. " and "p. M. P. " categories.- In respect of Defence (D. C.) and P. M. . P. categories where the inter-se priority is given by the competent authorities like D. G. R. etc. the evaluation as per our spelt out norms as above will be carried out simultaneously considering the following marks in addition to the 100 marks mentioned above based on the certificate produced by the candidate from the appropriate authorities. In other words these persons will be evaluated on a total marks of 140. (a ). the evaluation as per our spelt out norms as above will be carried out simultaneously considering the following marks in addition to the 100 marks mentioned above based on the certificate produced by the candidate from the appropriate authorities. In other words these persons will be evaluated on a total marks of 140. (a ). For Defence Category (D. C.)_ Priority I Widows/dependants of posthumous gallentry award 40 marks Priority II Widows/dependants of those who did in war 32 marks Priority III War disabled 24 marks Priority IV Widows/dependants of those died in harness due to attributable causes 16 marks Priority V Disabled in peace due to attributable causes 8 marks ( 7 ) HE has also referred to Clause 12 of the aforesaid advertisement in newspaper dated 7. 9. 2007, which provides for redressal of grievance in this regard and submits that the representation of the petitioner with regard to his claim is still pending. He further submits that according to Clause 14 the total marks including weightage marks awarded out of 140 are taken to be considered. Hence respondent No. 3 having obtained 79 marks out of 140 is entitled to get the distributionship. ( 8 ) IN rebuttal learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that question of weightage would come into picture only when the minimum marks for eligibility are obtained by any candidate. Since the petitioner has 41. 83 marks in comparison 32 marks obtained by the petitioner in the interview apart form weightage marks, she is entitled for distributionship in reference to respondent No. 3 who has not been able to even get qualifying minimum marks in the interview. ( 9 ) THE matter requires consideration. ( 10 ) LET counter-affidavit be filed within three weeks by the respondents. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. ( 11 ) LIST thereafter. ( 12 ) IN view of the fact that representation of the petitioner appended as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition is also pending before respondent No. 2. It is directed that the same be also decided within three weeks. ( 13 ) IN the meantime respondent No. 2 is restrained from issuing any letter intent to respondent No. 3 till the next date of listing. ( 14 ) IT is clarified that this interim order is only in respect of the petitioner. Interim Injunction Granted. .