JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.A. Singh, J.—This writ petition has been moved by Smt. Sunita Gupta for issuing a writ of certiorari with a prayer to quash the orders dated 27.7.2006 and 26.12.2006, Annexures 4 and 17 to the writ petition. The relief of writ of mandamus has also been sought to direct the respondents for issuing a letter of intent to the petitioner in pursuance of her selection dated 3.3.2006 for retail outlet dealership at Islam Nagar, Bisauli Marg, Dist. Badaun in between 0.1 Km. Mile stone and further to direct the respondents for issuing necessary supply of HSD and MSD for her retail outlet dealership. 2. The brief facts as stated in this writ petition are that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited issued an advertisement in newspaper “Amar Ujala dated 20.7.2005” inviting applications for opening its retail outlet on the said location in the category of open-W (women) by 22.8.2005, and in pursuance of above advertisement the petitioner moved an application on proper format alongwith all relevant documents and demand draft of Rs. 1000/- for grant of retail outlet on 18.8.2005. Thereafter the team of Corporation visited the site of the petitioner and submitted its report in the office. The Corporation after being satisfied with the location of land, called the petitioner for an interview vide letter dated 10.2.2006 and the petitioner appeared for interview on 3.3.2006 at 9.30 a.m. at hotel Madhuban, Krishna Nagar District Mathura before selection committee constituted by the respondent and on the same day at 9 p.m. a list was declared on notice Board in which the name of the petitioner was shown to be selected and her name was placed on the top. The petitioner was waiting for letter of intent but all of sudden the petitioner received a registered letter dated 27.7.2006 issued by Deputy General Manager In-charge North Zone, on 7.8.2006, in which it was mentioned that the respondents decided to set aside the entire interview and selection for above location and called for conducting a fresh interview. The petitioner got 35 marks awarded for the land as indicated in the order dated 27.7.2006, but it was also mentioned therein that the selection committee wrongly awarded 35 marks to the petitioner whereas zero marks should have been awarded to the petitioner because no consent letter was granted by the owners of the land. The petitioner got 35 marks awarded for the land as indicated in the order dated 27.7.2006, but it was also mentioned therein that the selection committee wrongly awarded 35 marks to the petitioner whereas zero marks should have been awarded to the petitioner because no consent letter was granted by the owners of the land. The decision was taken in the review meeting held by the respondents as per policy and guidelines. No opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before cancellation of selection and thus the order passed by the committee was in violation of principles of natural justice and the same was liable to be quashed on this sole ground. In view of Clause 14 of the guidelines the land owned by the family members comprising of spouse and unmarried children was to be considered as the land of the applicant subject to the consent of the concerned family members. The said land was initially the ownership of Sri Fakirulla Khan and Shakruddin Nawina. Sri Shakruddin Nawina sold his share in the land to Ram Nandan Prasad, Mohan Lal and Harish Chandra and Fakirulla Khan sold his share to Subhash Chandra, Sanjeev Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. In view of family settlement taking place between Ram Nandan Prasad, Madan Lal and Harish Chandra, sons of Late Bhikhari Lal the names of Madan Lal and Sanjeev Kumar were entered in Khatauni as joint owners of the land, which was submitted. Thus the petitioner was the owner of the land which was proposed for purpose of opening retail outlet. The consent of the husband of the petitioner as well as Madan Lal was also given in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted certificates of search issued by Sub-Registrar Bisauli and Deputy Registrar Belsi, Badaun dated 6.8.2005 and 11.8.2005 respectively to this effect that initially this land was falling in Tehsil Bisauli and thereafter, it was transferred to Tehsil Belsi. The Tehsildar Belsi also issued a certificate showing the 1/6th share of the petitioner’s husband in the land. The are of the land of petitioner’s husband’s share was 2980 square meters while the requirement for the purpose was 900 square meters. Moreover the length of this land on the road was 51 meters and depth was 58 meters, which was in the personal share of the husband of the petitioner, whereas the requirement of advertisement was 30 meters x 30 meters. Moreover the length of this land on the road was 51 meters and depth was 58 meters, which was in the personal share of the husband of the petitioner, whereas the requirement of advertisement was 30 meters x 30 meters. Thus the land proposed was much more than the required land as was mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner also submitted a certificate issued by the President Nagar Panchayat Islam Nagar, District Badaun dated 9.11.2005 of the concerned area showing that there was no dispute and family settlement between the parties had taken place as well as all the persons were in possession of their share in the land. There was also no litigation with regard to any part of land in any Court of law and it was free from all encumbrances. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belsi, Distt. Badaun passed an order under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on 10.4.2006 declaring the said property land to be non-ZA area. The order was passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Annexure 19 in order to show the said land of Gata 1158, area 1.788 H situated in Kasba and Pargana Islam Nagar, District Badaun in the name of Sanjeev Kumar son of Madan Lal and Madan Lal son of Bhikhari Lal having 1/3 share i.e. 0.596 hectare. There was no dispute regarding the land proposed and all the documents were submitted before the selection committee which was fully satisfied with the same and the committee awarded 35 marks in favour of the petitioner for land and infrastructure. The petitioner then filed writ petition No. 56740 of 2006, Smt. Sunita Gupta v. Union of India and others, challenging the order dated 27.7.2006 passed by the Review Committee, which was finally disposed of by this Court on 12.10.2006, in pursuance of which the petitioner moved a detailed representation dated 23.10.2006 before the respondent alongwith documents as mentioned in Para 39 of the petition. The respondent Corporation in pursuance of order passed by this Court sent a letter dated 6.12.2006 fixing 14.12.2006 at 11 a.m. for personal appearance of the petitioner in the office of the Corporation at Mathura. The petitioner appeared on the said date, time and place and the hearing took place in the office of the Corporation on that day and the petitioner was asked to wait for the decision taken on this issue. The petitioner appeared on the said date, time and place and the hearing took place in the office of the Corporation on that day and the petitioner was asked to wait for the decision taken on this issue. The respondent Corporation vide order dated 26.12.2006 dismissed the representation filed by the petitioner. 3. In counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, it has been alleged that the writ petition has been moved with incorrect and misconceived facts. No doubt the petitioner has filed writ petition No. 56740 of 2006, Smt. Sunita Gupta v. Union of India and others, challenging the order dated 27.7.2006 and the respondents complying with the order passed by this Court constituted a review committee and afforded an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and thereafter a proper and reasoned order was passed. The petitioner did not submit complete documents as required and also failed to submit the consent letters of the co-owners of the proposed land, as a result of which the selection of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 27.7.2006 and the matter was finally decided on 26.12.2006. The petitioner over-looked the document dated 10.2.2006 which demonstrated that all the documents were to be placed before the interview Board and the condition of submission of consent letters of all co-owners of the land was part and parcel of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 20.7.2005. It was apparent from paragraph 13 of the advertisement as well as in the application form itself. Since the consent letters of all co-owners of the land proposed were not submitted alongwith the application form so the selection was rightly cancelled and 35 marks awarded to the petitioner, under the parameter of land and infrastructure facility was wrong and the same was rectified by awarding zero marks. Mere showing the name of the petitioner on the top in the list pasted on the notice board does not give right to a prospective candidate and even more the selection does not confer any right. The order dated 27.7.2006 is perfectly valid and legal, which does not suffer from any infirmity. Once there has been some errors in awarding marks, the same can be rectified. The order dated 27.7.2006 has been passed by affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order has been passed by the respondents in accordance with guidelines and advertisement. The order dated 27.7.2006 is perfectly valid and legal, which does not suffer from any infirmity. Once there has been some errors in awarding marks, the same can be rectified. The order dated 27.7.2006 has been passed by affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order has been passed by the respondents in accordance with guidelines and advertisement. A bare perusal of the alleged family settlement, Annexure 7 goes to show that the said document is a waste paper having no evidentiary value at all. The document cannot be relied on and referred to in any proceeding whatsoever. The document dated 3.7.1984, under which family settlement is alleged to have taken place, was not submitted alongwith an application dated 18.8.2005 and the same was submitted alongwith representation dated 23.10.2006. Under these circumstances the petitioner could not comply with the conditions mentioned in the brochure and his selection was rightly cancelled by order dated 26.12.2006. The extract of Khatauni Annexure 8 was also not submitted alongwith the application form dated 18.8.2005 and the same was submitted alongwith representation dated 23.10.2006 and thus the same could not be considered in view of the provisions contained in sub-clause (F) of Clause 12.1 of application form. This Court disposing of writ petition No. 56740 of 2006 on 12.10.2006 directed the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondents who were directed to decide the same by reasoned order exercising its unfettered discretion on the basis of the record before it, according to the relevant rules, Government orders, scheme and policy. This Court did not enter into the merits of the case and thus the respondents were directed to decide the issue in accordance with the guidelines. Consequently, the respondents were right in not taking into consideration those documents which were not filed alongwith the application form, because the documents were filed subsequently to last day of submission of the application form i.e. 22.8.2005. The certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer Islam Nagar, Distt. Badaun on 26.5.2006 was a document which was not submitted alongwith application form. Thus it was a document filed subsequent to the cut-off date i.e. 22.8.2005. The certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer Islam Nagar, Distt. Badaun on 26.5.2006 was a document which was not submitted alongwith application form. Thus it was a document filed subsequent to the cut-off date i.e. 22.8.2005. The petitioner did not submit the consent letters of co-owners of the land proposed and thus the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected because consent letters by co-owners was a mandatory requirement under Clause 14 of the dealership guidelines as well as the conditions provided in the advertisement and thus the petitioner’s candidature could not be considered and zero marks were rightly awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner was wrongly awarded 35 marks in respect of land and infrastructure facility and the respondents were within their authority to rectify the said error. The petitioner cannot get advantage of wrong marks awarded to her as rectification is always permissible. The orders dated 26.12.2006 and 27.7.2006 are perfectly valid and legal and the petitioner has wrongly challenged these orders alleging violation of her fundamental rights. The petitioner has been trying to misinterpret the provisions contained in Clause 12.1 (E) (F) of the guidelines as well as 10-C and 10-D of the advertisement dated 20.7.2005. No additional documents are liable to be accepted and considered after cut-off date. The family settlement has no evidentiary value at all and this document dated 3.7.1984 was also submitted for very first time alongwith representation dated 23.10.2006 which could not be considered because the said document was filed subsequent to last date of the application form. 4. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit denying the allegations made in the counter-affidavit. The statutory Corporation is trying to find out the material facts from the Court and thus appropriate action should be initiated against the respondent by way of imposing exemplary cost. In view of Clause 7 of the advertisement all the application forms received in time were to be processed by a group of officers and the applicants found eligible were to be called for interview. The papers regarding land submitted by the petitioner were scrutinized by the said group of officers. Ineligible persons were not to be called for interview. In view of Clause 7 of the advertisement all the application forms received in time were to be processed by a group of officers and the applicants found eligible were to be called for interview. The papers regarding land submitted by the petitioner were scrutinized by the said group of officers. Ineligible persons were not to be called for interview. The application form submitted by the petitioner was duly processed by the group of officers and all the documents submitted by the petitioner were examined by them and they also visited the spot and found the same in order, thereafter the petitioner was called for interview and thus it was not open for the respondent to allege that the said forms were not in order. In view of brochure or guidelines issued by the respondents there was no provision for review as such the respondent had no right to review the decision taken by the selection committee. The respondent Corporation tried to justify the invalid order on the grounds which were not mentioned in the order. In view of the settled proposition of law the respondent cannot be permitted to raise the additional ground which are not mentioned in the order itself. It has been mentioned in the order dated 27.7.2006 that as per policy the marks awarded by the interview committee is subject to the final decision of the review committee. From the policy, Annexure 5 to the writ petition there is no such provision for review committee. Moreover the communication dated 27.7.2006 has not been signed by the appointing member of the review committee. The order is signed by the Deputy General Manager In-Charge North Zone the respondents have failed to annex the conception of review committee alongwith the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent. The subsequent order has been passed after the order of this Court on the representation of the petitioner but the same has not been passed by the review committee and it has been sent under the signature of Sri Rajnish Mehta constituted attorney of Mathura Refinery raising as such the order passed by this Court on 12.10.2006 has not been complied with by the respondent and representation has not been decided by the competent authority. The order dated 27.7.2006 was passed by the Deputy General Manager In-Charge North Zone and the order dated 26.12.2006 was passed by Chief Regional Manager Mathura Refinery Region. The order dated 27.7.2006 was passed by the Deputy General Manager In-Charge North Zone and the order dated 26.12.2006 was passed by Chief Regional Manager Mathura Refinery Region. The petitioner is co-owner of the land proposed by her and thus there was no requirement of the consent as there was a clear portion of the land and that partition was found valid by the consolidation officer. The Naksa Partali prepared by consolidation authorities was also filed and was explained. The petitioner was found in possession of the land of the said plot. The land proposed by the petitioner was found suitable by the officers by way of examining the documents as well as by visiting the spot under Clause VIII of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement. In view of condition No. 14 the respondent was not empowered to pass the orders dated 27.7.2006 and 26.12.2006. The respondent found the application of the petitioner in order and called her for interview. The group of officers visited the spot and found the land proposed by the petitioner most suitable. No document was overlooked by the petitioner and all the documents were produced before the selection committee and they found the same in order and thereafter awarded the marks to the petitioner. The consent letter as required was produced before the selection committee. There was no need of the consent at the time of settlement of the application form. The petitioner submitted her application form alongwith the map of the consolidation. There is no provision of review under the policy of the Corporation nor the respondent has the power or competence to cancel the selection. The marks were awarded according to the rules and regulations. The clause 12.1 is contrary to clause 14 of the brochure. Clause 10-D is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. We have heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.M. Saggi, for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, on this writ petition and gone through the record of the case. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and submissions of learned counsel for parties, the following points and conclusions can be drawn : 7. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and submissions of learned counsel for parties, the following points and conclusions can be drawn : 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was able to provide the land indicated in the application and the respondent Corporation should have issued a letter of intent after the date of selection, but the respondents instead of issuing the letter of intent, cancelled the interview without any proper and justified ground, violating the fundamental right of the petitioner. The petitioner had filed the documents relating to the land proposed for opening of retail outlet and the land was the ownership of her husband. All the required documents were submitted by the petitioner alongwith her application before cut-off date. 8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner overlooked the document dated 10.2.2006 because all the documents were to be submitted alongwith her application form and all the original documents were to be produced by the petitioner at the time of interview for consideration. The condition of submission of consent letters of all co-owners of the land was part and parcel of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 20.7.2005. But the petitioner could not file all the relevant documents as required by the guidelines alongwith her application form and at the time of her interview. 9. We have gone through Paragraph 13 of the advertisement as well as application form which are evident to show that the petitioner was bound to submit consent letters of all the co-owners of the land proposed for opening of retail outlet in view of condition mentioned therein as she was not the owner of the land, but the petitioner could not submit the consent letters of all the owners of the land alongwith her application form, as a result of which the respondents were justified in reviewing selection of the petitioner. 10. 10. We have observed that the selection committee awarded 35 marks to the petitioner, in view of land and infrastructure facility as per policy and guidelines, but subsequently it noticed that the petitioner was not the owner of the land proposed for the purpose and she also failed to file consent letters of all the owners of the land in question as a result of which the respondents reviewed the decision selecting the petitioner and cancelled the interview as well as selection of the petitioner. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the team constituted by the Corporation/respondent visited the site of the petitioner and being satisfied with the site the respondents called the petitioner for interview. The learned counsel further contended that the selection committee after having been satisfied with all formalities and the land as well as infrastructure facility selected the petitioner and placed her on the top of the list. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she got 35 marks awarded for the land and thus the respondents could not cancel the interview and selection of the petitioner and they were bound to issue the letter of intent. 12. We are not convinced with the above contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner because the selection could not confer any right on the petitioner and she was prospective candidate and no right was granted by the respondents to the petitioner for opening of retail outlet. Mere selection of the petitioner and selection list being pasted on the notice board could not confer any right to a prospective candidate. 13. In this regard para 17.1 of guidelines for selection of Retail outlet dealers is found relevant that even after being selected by the selection committee, the petitioner is not entitled to get letter of intent because field verification of the site is to be conducted by the authority before issuance of letter of intent. Para 17.1 of guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet dealers provides as under : “FIELD VERIFICATION The dealership will be offered to the No. 1 candidate in the merit panel on the basis of the interview after necessary field verification of issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI). Para 17.1 of guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet dealers provides as under : “FIELD VERIFICATION The dealership will be offered to the No. 1 candidate in the merit panel on the basis of the interview after necessary field verification of issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI). If the No. 1 candidate is not found suitable/fails to fulfill the terms and conditions of the award of dealership or the award is to be cancelled for any reason whatsoever, the dealership will be offered to the 2nd candidate in the merit panel after necessary field verification.” 14. In view of above guidelines mere selection of petitioner at serial No. 1 could not confer any right to her and in view of non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions, the award of dealership or the award was liable to be cancelled for any reason whatsoever. Para 17.2 of guidelines further provides that the dealership offer to the first empanelled candidate can be withdrawn for any reason whatsoever or the dealership can be terminated on account of wrong statement made in the application or any other reason like proved ineligibility of the dealer or proven malpractice. 15. The learned counsel for petitioner further contended that the land of her husband was proposed by her for retail outlet and consent letter of her husband was annexed with her application form. The learned counsel also contended that in view of guidelines the land of her spouse or unmarried children was to be deemed the land of the petitioner and thus the review committee wrongly cancelled the selection of the petitioner on account of non-availability of land and infrastructure facility. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the above contention of the petitioner on the ground that the land proposed by her was jointly held in the name of her husband and five others, the consent letters of her husband Sri Sanjeev Kumar and his father Madan Lal were submitted, while Sri Sanjeev Kumar was a co-owner of the land proposed, however there was no consent letters from other land owners. Thus the selection itself stood vitiated and therefore it was decided to set aside the entire interview and selection of the above location and thereby calling for conduct of fresh interview. 17. Thus the selection itself stood vitiated and therefore it was decided to set aside the entire interview and selection of the above location and thereby calling for conduct of fresh interview. 17. Para 14 of guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers provides the following conditions : “PREFERENCE FOR APPLICANTS OFFERING SUITABLE LAND Availability of suitable land for setting up of retail outlet as the advertised location is the essence of the project. Wherever it has been indicated in the advertisement that land is also needed at the advertised location, applicants who readily have suitable site available for setting up of retail outlet or have a firm commitment from the land owner for purchase/lease of site, applicants willing to transfer the land on ownership/long term lease of HPCL would be given preference while awarding marks under the head land and infrastructure. The above is subject to considering the location of the land from the point of view of suitability from technical and commercial angle and rates acceptable to HPCL. However, the land and details offered alongwith the application will only be considered for this purpose and the applicant will not be given the opportunity to offer any other land subsequently. For this purpose, the land owned by the family members namely spouse/unmarried children will also be considered as belonging to the applicant subject the consent of the concerned family member. However, if an applicant after selection on the above basis is unable to provide the land indicated in the application within a period of TWO months from the date of Letter of Intent (LOI), HPCL will have the right to cancel the allotment of dealership made to the applicant. The suitability of the land will be decided by HPCL. However, there is no commitment from HPCL for taking the offered land from the applicant.” 18. The learned counsel for respondents further submits that in view of para 14, the land proposed for opening of retail outlet should have been owned by the applicant or by her family members namely spouse/unmarried children, it will also be considered as belonging to the applicant subject to the consent of the concerned family members. In the present writ petition the petitioner herself mentioned that the land was initially the ownership of Sri Fakirulla Khan and Shakruddin Nawina. In the present writ petition the petitioner herself mentioned that the land was initially the ownership of Sri Fakirulla Khan and Shakruddin Nawina. Sri Shakruddin Nawina transferred his share in the land to Ram Nandan Prasad, Madan Lal and Harish Chandra. Fakirulla Khan sold his share to Subhash Chandra, Sanjeev Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. Thus several persons including Sanjeev Kumar, husband of the petitioner became co-owners of the land. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a family settlement took place between Ram Nandan Prasad, Madan Lal and Harish Chandra, all sons of Late Bhikhari Lal and their names were entered in the Khatauni as joint owners of the land. The petitioner alongwith her application filed extract of Khatauni showing the joint ownership of the land proposed by her. Sri Sanjeev Kumar husband of the petitioner was entered as joint owner of the land in Khatauni and the consent letters of the husband of the petitioner as well as her father-in-law Madan Lal were also submitted in favour of the petitioner. 20. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently rebutting the above contention has submitted that the family settlement took place between the co-owners in respect of joint agricultural land, while the partition of joint agricultural land could take place under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, and on the basis of family settlement, partition of the agricultural land purchased by all the owners could not be held valid in view of provisions of Section 176. Under these circumstances Sri Sanjeev Kumar, husband of the petitioner could not be held sole owner of the land proposed for the purpose. In view of para 14 of the guidelines, the spouse and unmarried children of the petitioner could accord consent in respect of the land proposed for opening of retail outlet. Thus the consent of the husband of the petitioner in respect of the land owned by several persons was not sufficient to fulfil the condition as laid down in para 14 of the guidelines. This fact was not noticed by the selection committee at the time of interview, but subsequently, it was noticed that the husband of the petitioner was not exclusive owner of the land proposed, as a result of which the decision was reviewed and interview as well as selection of the petitioner was cancelled and fresh interview was decided to be called. 21. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in writ petition No. 56740 of 2006, Smt. Sunita Gupta v. Union of India and others, filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.7.2006, the respondent fixed 14.12.2006 for hearing of the dispute, calling the petitioner and afforded an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner in her representation made before the respondents in pursuance of order dated 12.10.2006 passed by the Court in the said writ petition mentioned that the husband of the petitioner purchased Bhumidhari land of Khasra Plot No. 1158 measuring Seven Bigha One Biswa Ten Biswansi Pukhta to the extent of 1/6 share through registered sale-deed dated 11.4.1978 and after the purchase, a mutual partition took place among all co-sharers on 3.7.1984 in which the share of all co-sharers were demarcated by dotted lines. It has further been contended that the aforesaid oral partition has been acted upon and share of each co-sharer has been separated and possession has been delivered thereon accordingly. 22. The learned counsel for respondents controverting the above contention submitted that family settlement dated 3.7.1984 showing the partition of the land between all land owners was not a legal document as it was a memorandum showing the right for the sake of memory and thus no clear partition between the co-owners of the land purchased by them jointly took place. The documents filed by the petitioner alongwith her application form or representation could not show as to which portion was allotted to the husband of petitioner. In absence of any valid and admissible document the petitioner could not prove her exclusive possession over any particular portion of the land purchased by several persons jointly. The memorandum of family settlement is not a legally admissible document in order to prove the partition. Under these circumstances the petitioner could not file any document alongwith her application form dated 18.8.2005 to show that her husband Sri Sanjeev Kumar was the sole owner of the particular plot proposed by her on the date of advertisement. In view of condition of the advertisement as well as guidelines laid down in this regard no documents submitted by her subsequent to cut-off date were to be accepted and considered. In view of condition of the advertisement as well as guidelines laid down in this regard no documents submitted by her subsequent to cut-off date were to be accepted and considered. Consequently, the respondents cancelled the selection of the petitioner in view of the fact that under parameter “land and infrastructure facility”, the petitioner had been wrongly awarded the marks. 23. Para 12.1 of guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers, provides that an application form alongwith relevant documents should be submitted within the time prescribed, no addition/deletion/alteration will be permitted in the application once it is submitted. No additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or considered after the cut-off date of the application. In the present writ petition we have found that the petitioner could not file all required documents alongwith application form. The land proposed for the purpose was found joint ownership of several persons including her husband and no valid and legal partition of the land took place between them. The petitioner’s husband was not found the sole owner of the land offered by her for retail outlet dealership. Under these circumstances the respondents were justified in reviewing the decision taken by the selection committee and cancelling the interview and selection of the petitioner. 24. On the basis of above submissions made by learned counsel for parties and their pleadings as well as the documents filed on record. We have found that the respondents have not committed any mistake in not taking into consideration the documents which have been submitted subsequent to last date of submission of the application form, because those documents could not be considered in view of Para 12.1 of guidelines. We have also observed that the respondents have afforded full opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and there is no violation of natural justice. No opportunity appears to have been afforded to the petitioner before cancellation of selection, but in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in writ petition, the respondents have afforded full opportunity to the petitioner of being heard on her representation. No opportunity appears to have been afforded to the petitioner before cancellation of selection, but in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in writ petition, the respondents have afforded full opportunity to the petitioner of being heard on her representation. The respondents have rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner through detailed and speaking order, which does not suffer from any infirmity, mistake or error, because the husband of the petitioner has not been found exclusive owner and in possession of the land proposed for retail outlet and no legal partition has taken place among all co-sharers as memorandum of alleged partition dated 3.7.1984 is a waste paper having no evidentiary value, which cannot be relied on and referred to in any proceeding. 25. Under these circumstances no principles of natural justice has been violated by the respondents. The petitioner herself concealed the important facts at the time of presenting her application form and interview about the ownership of land and infrastructure facility. Thus the decision has been validly reviewed and selection of the petitioner has been rightly cancelled, which cannot be said to be vitiated in view of any fact and circumstance. The selection of the petitioner does not confer any right to a prospective candidate because no letter of intent has been issued by the respondents in pursuance of the selection and no agreement has been executed by the parties in response to above selection. 26. In view of above discussions we are of opinion that the orders dated 27.7.2006 and 26.12.2006 passed by the respondents, Annexures 4 and 17 to the writ petition do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or error. The impugned orders are perfectly justified, valid, legal and in accordance with the guidelines prescribed in this regard, which are not required any interference. Thus the writ petition lacks merit. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs to writ petition. ————