JUDGEMENT 1. All parties have appeared. Counter affidavits fifed with, rejoinder. With consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 2. Petitioner challenges selection of Respondent No. 7 for award of dealership under KISHAN SEVA KENDRA Scheme of Indian Oil Corporation of India Limited at Harsidhi in the District of East Champaran. It is not in dispute that Respondent No. 7 was interviewed and empanelled as the first candidate but no letter of intent has yet been issued to him much less any agreement entered into between the Indian Oil Corporation and Respondent No. 7. It may be noted that initially though Respondent No. 7 was selected by the Indian Oil Corporation, now in the counter affidavit, the Indian Oil Corporation has admitted its mistake in selection which entitles the petitioner for selection as he was the second empanelled candidate. Respondent No. 7 assailed the stand of the Indian Oil Corporation and defends the selection. The question is which of the stands are correct. 3. The facts are not in dispute that on 7.12.2005, Indian Oil Corporation issued advertisement inviting applications for dealership under their KISHAN SEVA KENDRA Scheme for different places and it included Harsidhi in the. District of East Champaran. Petitioner and Respondent No. 7 amongst others applied. One of the eligibility clauses for the purposes of the said advertisement was that there could be only one dealership to a family unit. The family unit was individual, his or her spouse and unmarried sons/daughters. The purpose and the intention was clear. The intention was the social objective of distribution of dealership amongst larger public. The intention was to stop multiple dealerships within a family. Here Respondent No. 7 in fact never concealed the facts that his father had a petroleum retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation itself. 4. Applications were made on 5.1.2006 and pursuant thereto interviews were held on 17.6.2006. 5. Petitioner contended before the authorities that on the date when Respondent No. 7 made an application for dealership, he was unmarried and his father had a petroleum dealership under Indian Oil Corporation as such he was not eligible for dealership. Petitioners specific case was that in fact, Respondent No. 7 got married on 18.6.2006 that is a day after interview as per the wedding invitation card in relation to Respondent No. 7. Petitioners specific case was that in fact, Respondent No. 7 got married on 18.6.2006 that is a day after interview as per the wedding invitation card in relation to Respondent No. 7. Both on the date of application and on the date of interview Respondent No. 7 was unmarried, being in a family already having a dealership and as such was disqualified. 6. The defence of Respondent No. 7 is that in fact he had got married in a temple on 15.1.2006. His marriage was solemnized in Bhoot Nath Temple at Lucknow in the State of Uttar Pradesh and it was actually formalized socially on 18.6.2006 as per the wedding invitation card produced by the petitioner. In support of the temple wedding, Respondent No. 7 produced certificate granted by the temple authorities. It was thus contended that though at the time of application he was unmarried but at the time of interview, he was married, that being so, fell outside the prohibition clause and did not then belong to the family of this father. 7. Indian Oil Corporation of India Limited at first accepted the stand of Respondent No. 7 and it is because of that Respondent No. 7 was deem to have qualified and empanelled as the first empanelled candidate. After the writ petition was filed, Indian Oil Corporation conducted enquiries. In the enquiries they verified the genuineness of the certificate by taking the statements of the Chairman and the President of the temple trust but when they demanded the records of the temple for verification, it was not given to them or shown to them. On basis of this, though they had certificate about authenticity of the temple marriage, that authenticity remain to be verified which led to the finding by the Corporation that the temple marriage could not be corroborated. They thus found that both on the date of application and on the date of interview petitioner was unmarried and was thus in the family with his father who already had a petroleum dealership and was thus disqualified. 8. Having heard the parties and consider the facts aforesaid, in my view, the petitioner must succeed for the simple reason that the aforesaid disqualifying relationship clause of multiple dealership has a social objective. The purpose is to avoid concentration of wealth by way of dealership of Oil Companies in one family. 8. Having heard the parties and consider the facts aforesaid, in my view, the petitioner must succeed for the simple reason that the aforesaid disqualifying relationship clause of multiple dealership has a social objective. The purpose is to avoid concentration of wealth by way of dealership of Oil Companies in one family. A family in my view as define would be the father, unmarried sons/daughter and spouse. 9. On the other hand, on behalf of Respondent No. 7, Mrs. Namrata Mishra, learned counsel submits that literal interpretation to the clause must be given. The clause should be read as applicant or her spouse unmarried son or daughter. If that be so then it does not include the father and thus her client is entitled to a dealership. First let us see the result of this interpretation. The result would be that notwithstanding petitioners father having a dealership, petitioner would also be entitled to get the dealership. If, then petitioners son was to apply for dealership whether married or unmarried he would equally be entitled for a dealership. Will it not be at cross purpose with the aim and object of the clause itself? 10. In my view, the larger social interest has to be kept in mind and purposive interpretation given to the clause without doing violence to the words used therein. If the purposive interpretation is given keeping in mind the purpose of the provision and the intention beyond it, then it is clear that father of Respondent No. 7 having a dealership, Respondent No. 7 stood disqualified, whether married or unmarried is of little consequence, because at the time he made an application admittedly he was not married even with the aid of the temple marriage story, he was clearly ineligible to apply. 11. The Court was curious with regard to the stand of the temple marriage. Even at various stages the officers of the Corporation work on the view that if Respondent No. 7 was married at the time of interview, he was eligible. This confusion is evident from wrong appreciation of circulars in this regards. In the counter affidavit the Corporation has annexed the circular of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India dated 30th of December, 2005 (Annexure-D). There what was the multiple dealership norms have been stated as noticed above. This confusion is evident from wrong appreciation of circulars in this regards. In the counter affidavit the Corporation has annexed the circular of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India dated 30th of December, 2005 (Annexure-D). There what was the multiple dealership norms have been stated as noticed above. There would be no confusion if things were left at that but confusion starts with the circular of Indian Oil Corporation dated 6th of March, 2006. It appears that the government of India changed the multiple dealership norms vide their letter dated 21.2.2006. The authorities then thought that the changed norms would apply to pending interviews. As noted above, the applications were filed on 5.1.2006 and the interviews were held on 16.6.2006 and the changed norms were being introduced with effect from 21.2.2006 which led to confusion. 12. In my view, there was no scope for any confusion because it is well settled that one cannot change horses in midst of a race. Here the race had started with the applications being filed on 5th of January, 2006. Any change in selection or eligibility norms subsequent thereto would only be effective prospectively and could not be retrospectively changed. The eligibility norms are for a very simple reason. If by this change some people who are ineligible earlier were being made eligible then all law abiding people who considering themselves to be ineligible had not applied would loose out. That surely could not be the intention of changing norms. Changes norms apply to tenders issued thereafter and not already acted upon. 13. Thus seen on the day when Respondent No. 7 made an application, his father having a dealership, Respondent No. 7 was disqualified and fit to be declared ineligible. That being so his empanelment as the first candidate was liable to be cancelled. That being so, the writ application has to be allowed and is allowed accordingly. Consequently the Indian Oil Corporation is directed to take a decision in accordance with law. 14. The writ application with the aforesaid observations and directions stands allowed.