Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The instant petition is for quashing order dated 8.11.2007 (Annexure P-5) rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for award of Kissan Sewa Kendra Dealership of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Dhilawan. A further direction has been sought to consider the petitioner eligible for being awarded the dealership. It is the undisputed fact that on 25.5.2007, the respondent-corporation issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates at various places including, Dhilawan (Barnala). The application of the petitioner is stated to have been sent on 25.6.2007, which was within the prescribed period for sending the applications. According to the eligibility conditions envisaged by the advertisement, an applicant was required to be a resident of concerned District and he was to annex a copy of the residence certificate issued by the competent Government Officer. The petitioner, although submitted his application, but attached with his application form only a copy of the voter identity card. The aforementioned documents did not satisfy the respondents and they took the view that since residence proof from a competent authority was not attached, the petitioner was not eligible. In that regard, a communication dated 8.11.2007 (Annexure P-5) was sent to the petitioner stating that the respondents were not in a position to consider his candidature because of non-attaching of residence proof from the competent Government officer. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have sent a residence certificate to the respondents on 15.11.2007 (Annexure P-6) which was admittedly after the last date of receipt of applications. When the matter came up for consideration of this Court, the Division Bench has directed on 27.11.2007 that the petitioner be interviewed for the dealership, but the allotments were not to be finalized. However, respondents for some unavoidable reasons have not held interview. 2. In the written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, the stand taken in the impugned order has been reiterated and it has been asserted that the copies of the ration card and voter identity card did not fulfill the condition of eligibility enumerated in the advertisement and that those documents could not be considered as a proof of residence of a particular District. In support of the aforementioned assertion, reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Pardeep Rattan v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, and it has been submitted that a voter list has hardly any evidentary value. 3. Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the policy displayed on the website of the respondent-corporation, the eligibility criteria for dealership is that the candidate should be a resident of the concerned District and must attach proof of residence with the application form. According to the learned Counsel, the certificate of residence is not required to be issued by the competent authority as requirement incorporated in the advertisement dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure P-1). He has maintained that the same stand has been taken in the written statement filed by the respondents. Another argument raised by the learned Counsel is that in any case, residence proof has been furnished which although submitted much after the date of filing the application on 15.11.2007 (Annexure P-6) it should be considered as the interviews were yet to be held. 4. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, learned Counsel for the respondent, however, has submitted that in the absence of any certificate of competent authority in accordance with the terms of the advertisement, it will hot be possible for the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner because all the applicants have to be adjudged by the same yard stick. According to the learned Counsel, certificate dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure P-6) submitted by the petitioner also does not answer the specific requirement laid down in the advertisement, as it merely says that the petitioner has been residing in Punjab for the last above five years i.e. from 2002 to 2007, whereas the requirement was that the applicant must be the residence of concerned District. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant petition. The right of the petitioner has emanated from the advertisement dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure P-1) which is a declaration made to the public at large, inviting applications and all applicants are required to be adjudged by the requirement of the advertisement. The right of the petitioner has emanated from the advertisement dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure P-1) which is a declaration made to the public at large, inviting applications and all applicants are required to be adjudged by the requirement of the advertisement. The residence proof furnished by the petitioner in the form of secondary evidence of a ration card issued by the Food and Supplies, Punjab or it was a voter identity card issued by the Election Commissioner. However, the requirement of the respondents was to produce the primary evidence expressly certifying by the competent authority that the petitioner has been the resident of concerned District. Even, the certificate sent on 15.11.2007 (Annexure P-6) does not fulfill that requirement. 5. The petitioner in any case does not deserve consideration by treating him eligible because there may be large number of other similarly situated persons who might have been declared ineligible on the basis of requirement of the advertisement. The adoption of such a course at this stage would mean that new eligibility criteria is laid down either by ignoring the eligibility concerning residence proof or permitting the candidate to furnish such a proof at a later stage which is not permissible in law. As a sequel to the above discussion, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.