JUDGMENT 1. - At joint request, matter was finally heard so as to dispose of at admission stage. 2. Instant petition is directed against the selections made by respondents (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ("IOC') for allotment of retail outlet of Kesan Seva Kendra in regard to location at village Mai (Bharatpur) in open category in pursuance of advertisement dated 19.07.06 (Ann.5). 3. Respondent (IOC) issued an advertisement on 19.07.06 (Ann.5) for selection of retail outlet dealers in respect of Kesan Seva Kendra ("KSK") for various locations in State of Rajasthan including at village Mai (Bharatpur) in open category. As per conditions incorporated in advertisement (Ann.5) selection was to be made by way of interviews and marks were allocated in different heads. Minimum marks for qualifying selection test was 60% for open category candidates. 4. Petitioner claiming herself as eligible pursuant to advertisement (Ann.5) submitted application in open category for allotment of retail outlet in the KSK scheme for location at village Mai (Bharatpur) and requisite documents including xerox attested copy of certified registered sale deed dated 15.03.05 of plot No. 52 belonging to her husband in order to show capacity of arrangement finance were also enclosed with application. 5. In course of process of selection, petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 for interview on 29.12.06, during which original documents in support of her application & its enclosures were to be shown as required vide call letter for interview dated 11.12.2006 (Ann. R.1/1). However, she was declared to be in-eligible on the premise that she failed to furnish original registered sale deed of her husband's property at the time of interview, in regard to which, an endorsement was made on 29.12.2006 on check list for scrutiny of applications for RO dealership (Ann. R.1 /2). 6. Counsel for petitioner submits that an attested xerox copy of registered sale deed dated 15.03.05 of her husband's plot in order to show her capacity to arrange finance, for which 25 marks were allocated, was enclosed with her application and certified copy of registered sale deed was placed before the Committee in course of interview on 29.12.06 but she was considered to be in-eligible endorsing a Note that original registered sale deed was not produced during interview; such action of the respondents in holding her in-eligible was arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. Counsel further submits that as per result sheet which she obtained under right of information Act, being placed as Ann. 13 on record, clearly disclose that having secured "0" marks under Col. 1 (capacity to provide land & infra structure/facilities) by respondent No. 3 participating in selection process held for interview on 29.12.2006; he was considered to be eligible and was finally selected; in such circumstances, if petitioner was not holding original registered sale deed atleast the could not have been considered as in-eligible albeit it was not a pre-requisite condition for submission of original documents during interview. 7. Counsel further submits that once certified copy of registered sale deed was placed for perusal, which was as good as original registered sale deed and could not have been discarded by respondents while holding her in eligible inasmuch as in fact she was eliminated from consideration only with an oblique motive to select respondent No. 3 and such action of the part of respondents IOC was unwarranted and in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Respondents have filed their reply to writ petition. In, their reply, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 inter-alia averred that as per policy & guidelines under circular dated 10.10.2005, original documents have to be brought by applicants during interview, failing which the candidate will be considered to be in-eligible and such in-eligible candidates are not to be interviewed by selection committee; and since petitioner failed to place original registered sale deed of her husband's property on the date of interview 29.12.06, she was rightly declared as in-eligible; as such was not interviewed by Committee. 9. As regards respondent No. 3 having secured "0" marks under Col. 1 of his capacity to provide land & infrastructure, it has been averred that the land is not a sole criteria for awarding dealership under KSK Scheme but is one amongst others and that could certainly be arranged in case of having secured qualifying marks during selection process and stood in order of merit. 10. 1 of his capacity to provide land & infrastructure, it has been averred that the land is not a sole criteria for awarding dealership under KSK Scheme but is one amongst others and that could certainly be arranged in case of having secured qualifying marks during selection process and stood in order of merit. 10. Counsel submits that since site was not found viable by selection committee on being evaluated on the basis of norms, respondent No. 3 was given "0" marks, which alone does not make him in-eligible or disqualified; inasmuch as according to policy & guidelines of dealership, in case of candidate being awarded "0" marks under Col.1-capability to provide infra-structure & facilities then he has to secure full 25 marks in the criteria viz., capability to arrange finance vide Cls. 4.3.13.3 of policy guidelines. 11. Respondent No. 3 also filed reply almost on same lines as that of respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 12. I have considered contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. In terms of advertisement dated 19.07.06 (Ann.5) inviting applications for allotment of retail outlet under KSK scheme for various locations including Village-Mai-Bharatpur in open category, to qualify, one has to secure minimum 60% marks and selections were made on the basis of allocation of marks under different heads vice total 85 marks ad infra: (1) Capacity to provide land & infra-structure/facilities 20 marks (2) Capacity of arrangement of finance 25 marks (3) Education Qualification 15 marks (4) Capacity of progress of business 10 marks (5) Age 4 marks (6) Experience 4 marks (7) Business Ability/Capacity 5 marks (8) Personality 2 marks Total 85 marks Indisputably petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 11.12.2006 (Ann.R.1./1), pursuant to which she appeared on 29.12.06. 13. Petitioner enclosed an attested xerox copy of registered sale deed of her husband's property which she submitted along with application in support of her capability for arrangement of finance, for which 25 marks were allocated. However, she was declared to be in-eligible as is evident from an endorsement put on check list (Ann.R.1/2) during interview on 29.12.06 on the premise that original registered sale deed of her husband's property could not be produced. 14. However, she was declared to be in-eligible as is evident from an endorsement put on check list (Ann.R.1/2) during interview on 29.12.06 on the premise that original registered sale deed of her husband's property could not be produced. 14. Petitioner has come up with a specific case before this Court and submitted an affidavit in support whereof that certified copy of registered sale deed of her husband's property was placed for perusal during interview but was not considered to be sufficient holding that she failed to submit original registered sale deed whereof and it is also not the case of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that certified copy of registered sale deed was not produced by her at the time of interview. At the same time CI.3 of advertisement (Ann.5) discloses disqualifications from applying for allotment of dealership in the KSK scheme are those who (a) Committed economic offence or of moral turpitude; or (b) are completely paralysis or are of unsound mind or are insane; and (c) are held disqualified by Oil Companies. Indisputably, petitioner does not carry any of disqualification as referred to in CI.3 (supra). 15. On the directions of this Court, petitioner has produced certified copy of registered sale deed of her husband's property alleged to have been produced during interview on 29.12.06 in support of attested xerox copy of registered sale deed, having been submitted alongwith her application form, for perusal of this Court, which shows that certified copy was obtained by petitioner on 05.08.06 bearing application No. 798/06 and its attested photo copy was submitted alongwith her application form. Thus, this fact could remained uncontroverted that certified copy was available with petitioner which she had placed for perusal before committee at the time of interview. But objection raised by respondents (IOC) that original registered sale deed of her husband's property could not have been produced by petitioner during interview, suffice it to say that when certified copy obtained of registered sale deed of her husband's property was produced that could have been considered as good as original registered sale deed and certified copy could be discarded only in case of there being any discrepancy/inconsistency , found therein as compared to document furnished along with application. Even as per Clauses 11 & 12 of policy Circular dated 10.10.2005 reproduced in para 3 of para wise reply filed by respondents (IOC), original documents were required only to rule out discrepancy if found in copy as compared to original documents and if there is discrepancy pointed out in xerox copy as compared to original/certified copy, candidate can be considered to be in-eligible. CIs. 11 & 12 of Circular dated 10.10.05 provide : 11. The original documents brought by the applicants are to be seen by the Officer deputed by Divisional Office and verified with the attested copies submitted by them. In cases where there is a discrepancy in the attested copy as compared to the original documents, such candidates will be declared ineligible. 12. Such ineligible candidates, will be interviewed by the selection committee. However, in the mark sheet, following will be indicated against the name of such ineligible candidates "Discrepancy found in attested copy of (name of the document) as compared to the original & hence, ineligible." In instant case, there is no such endorsement put by selection committee that certified copy of registered sale deed of her husband's property produced for perusal during interview was having any discrepancy qua an attested copy which she enclosed alongwith her application; or on being compared with certified copy which she placed before selection committee during interview, was having discrepancy or any inconsistency - in absence whereof, holding the petitioner in-eligible, in the facts of instant case can in no manner be said to be justified and certainly it has violated her right of fair consideration enshrined U/Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. 16. It has to be looked into from other aspect also that respondent No. 3 who was not holding land, which could be considered to be viable for allotment of dealership under KSK scheme and site inspection committee awarded "0" marks to him; yet if was considered to be eligible and finally selected, then persons like petitioner who placed all documents on record including attested xerox copy of certified copy of registered sale deed of her husband' property; and placed certified copy of registered sale deed for perusal during interview before selection committee which did not point out a discrepancy/inconsistency in any of either attested or certified copy of registered sale deed in question, in the opinion of this Court, one cannot be held to be ineligible and in the facts of instant case, decision of respondents (IOC) in holding petitioner as in-eligible was arbitrary and their action was in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. As informed, after selections were made, Letter of intent was not issued to respondent No. 3 and matter has not been processed any further. 17. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Selection made by respondents (IOC) during interview held on 29.12.06 in pursuance of advertisement dated 19.07.06 (Ann.5) for allotment of retail outlet under KSK scheme for location at village-Mai (Bharatpur) is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to hold process of selection in accordance with law. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******