Judgment Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. The three Petitioners had responded to a notice inviting tender for appointment of retail outlets of petroleum products of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in relation to a rural retail outlet. The advertisement is Annexure-1. The location in dispute is at serial 54 being Mangrauni in the district of Madhubani which was for open general category under the rural marketing plan. As per advertisement, the area within which the rural retail outlet was to be located specified in column 1 and reads as follows: within two km radius of Janta College on Madhubani-Sibbipati Road. In the said advertisement itself, Clause 2(iv) provides one of the eligibility criteria which is in dispute: In case of Rural ROs, Applicants residing in the concerned village Panchayat of the location advertised will be eligible. However, the resident of the same Revenue village of the advertised location will be considered first for award to dealership. If no suitable candidate available in the concerned Revenue village, candidates from the same village Panchayat as mentioned above will be considered. The candidates must attach proof of residence with the application. 2. This eligibility criteria is applicable to all rural retail outlets without discrimination. It is not in dispute that the three Petitioners made applications. It is also not in dispute that they had lands for retail outlet site which they offered within two kilometers of the said Janta College. It is also not in dispute that they were unable to submit residence certificate of Mangrauni village or Mangrauni Revenue thana. All three were residents of adjoining Panchayat/villages but not Mangrauni Panchayat or Revenue thana. They were called for interview but at the last moment on the date of interview, they were not allowed to participate in the interview for which no reason was given. They applied for the reasons under Right to Information Act but the same was not given. Hence, they approached this Court against Respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited which undoubtedly is a Government of India undertaking and amenable to writ jurisdiction, even in contractual matters. Pursuant to notice issued, the Respondent-Corporation appeared, filed its counter-affidavit. Its categorical stand was that the interview letters were sent by mistake considering only the site availability. Hence, they approached this Court against Respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited which undoubtedly is a Government of India undertaking and amenable to writ jurisdiction, even in contractual matters. Pursuant to notice issued, the Respondent-Corporation appeared, filed its counter-affidavit. Its categorical stand was that the interview letters were sent by mistake considering only the site availability. When interview was to be held, it was realized that none of the three Petitioners submitted residence certificate as required by the eligibility criteria 2 (iv) noted above.They were, thus, ineligible and excluded. It is the correctness of this decision that is challenged by the Petitioners. 3. Shri S.D. Sanjay. learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondent-Corporation violated Article-14 of the Constitution by so laying down the eligibility criteria. In effect, it is a criteria to exclude all persons and restrict the dealership to a particular village/Panchayat. He submits that the classification is not reasonable nor based on any reasonable criteria and it has no rational nexus to whatever object is sought to be achieved. Reliance has been piaced on three Judgments of the Apex Court, namely, in the cases of Kedar Nath Bajoria and Anr. V/s. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 Supreme Court 404, Suneel Jatley V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1534 and Rasbihari Panda V/s. State of Orissa, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1081. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation submits firstly that Petitioners having participated in the selection process knowing fully well the conditions thereof cannot now on being found ineligible turn around and challenge the very provisions under which they apply. He secondly submits that the clauses of the advertisement are clear. The location has to be in village-Mangrauni within two kilometers of Janta College along the said road and the person who is to be appointed the rural retail outlet dealer has to be residents of that village/Panchayat/revenue thana. The object is discernible from this itself that is a local resident to man a local rural outlet. The classification, it is submitted, is reasonable and has rational nexus to the object which has efficient control and management locally available. He, thus, submits that rather than being in conflict with Article-14, it is in consonance with Article-14. 5. The object is discernible from this itself that is a local resident to man a local rural outlet. The classification, it is submitted, is reasonable and has rational nexus to the object which has efficient control and management locally available. He, thus, submits that rather than being in conflict with Article-14, it is in consonance with Article-14. 5. Shri Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the intervener who has been, in the meantime, selected but because of the Interim Order of this Court, no right has been created in his favour as yet. He supports the stand of the Respondent-Corporation. 6. With the consent of parties, this matter has been heard for disposal at this stage itself. 7. In my view, reading the eligibility conditions as mentioned above alongwith the details of the site, it is easily discernible that one eligibility condition has been attached to all rural retail outlets. A person has to satisfy both those conditions before he could be brought in for consideration. The two are having land along the particular road within two kilometers of Janta College. Admittedly, the village-Mangrauni is also situated well within two kilometers from Janta College aforesaid. Thus, the two conditions being the residents and locations both have to be satisfied before a person can be eligible. It is not disputed that Petitioners, though qualified for site location, did not satisfy the eligibility condition so far as residence is concerned. They were, thus, rightly excluded from consideration though at a later stage. Mere by calling them for interview does not create any right in them because even prior to /interview, the mistake was detected and they were declared ineligible. This being the position, the Petitioners cannot succeed unless Clause 2(iv) of the eligibility criteria, as noted above, is successfully impugned by the Petitioners. It is because of this that Shri S.D. Sanjay, learned Advocate attacked the said provisions on grounds of irrationality, as contained in Article-14 of the Constitution. 8. In my view, on the plain reading of the two eligibility terms that is residence and location, I do not find any irrational. The two conditions have been simultaneously imposed in respect of all rural outlets without any discrimination. The idea of the object is self-evident. For rural retail outlets, the Corporation wants a local resident to manage it and be available for managing it. The two conditions have been simultaneously imposed in respect of all rural outlets without any discrimination. The idea of the object is self-evident. For rural retail outlets, the Corporation wants a local resident to manage it and be available for managing it. Rural outlets are far small than conventional retail outlets. Permitting outsiders would encourage control going up in hands of others and not the person himself for small outlets that is not discernible economics. 9. Mr. S.D. Sanjay then submits that to be not irrational, the Corporation must show that it intended to establish rural retail outlets for every Panchayat otherwise such restrictive eligibility conditions would be bad. I am not impressed for the simple reason that Corporation is not doing any charitable work. It is a commercial organization and has to take a commercial decision. It has to follow good governance and being part of "State" in doing so, it may take up some social objectives as well which would not be applicable so far as entirely private enterprise is concerned. As noticed above, this eligibility criteria applies to all rural outlets wherefrom they are to be established by the Corporation without discrimination. 10. So far as the three cases relied are concerned, in my view, there cannot be quarrel with the proposition of law as laid down therein. The rationality and the nexus theory, as envisaged under Article 14, are too well established. The facts of all the three cases are totally different. In the case of Kedar Nath Bajoria (supra), the matter related to specifying certain criminal offences which were to be tried in a particular manner by a particular Court. That classification was challenged without success. The case at hand is totally different. In the case of Rasbihari Panda (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with creation of monopoly trading rights in Kendu leaves. While creating monopoly which was permissible in favour of the State they restricted the tenders to existing licensee dealers of Kendu leaves, the Apex Court deprived, apart from other, on the ground that when State was entering into such a business relationship then restricting it to an existing class of business was not proper. While creating monopoly which was permissible in favour of the State they restricted the tenders to existing licensee dealers of Kendu leaves, the Apex Court deprived, apart from other, on the ground that when State was entering into such a business relationship then restricting it to an existing class of business was not proper. The writ application in those cases were disposed of with the said observation holding that there was no nexus between such a restriction because nothing was sought to be achieved but only a class monopoly created in favour of existing traders to the exclusion of all others. Coming to the last case of Suneel Jatley (supra), the same dealt with reservation in matters of admission to MBBS Course. State had sought to make reservation for candidates coming from rural area. The Apex Court accepted the challenge as against the State policy on the ground that such a reservation could not fall within the protection guaranteed to the State in terms of Article 15(4) of the Constitution nor could it be held to be reasonable classification with rational nexus to the object for the rural population of a State took within its fold more than 80 per cent of the. area. Merely because a person was of a rural background upto Class VIII was not relevant when admissions to MBBS Course was considered. There was no rational nexus. In the present case, the nexus is live and relevant. It is, thus, rational. The nexus is availability of person at the rural retail outlet. 11. Thus, I do not find anything illegal much less unconstitutional in the provisions as quoted above and the Petitioners not specifying the eligibility criteria which has been upheld constitutionally were rightly disqualified. This writ application, thus, merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly.