JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mohd. Naseerullah and Sri Rakesh Pandey for the Corporation. 2. The petitioner, who is an applicant for Retail Outlet Dealership at Saifabad, Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh, is aggrieved by an order passed by the General Manager of the Corporation on 29.7.09, by means of which, his candidature has been rejected under the physically handicapped category. 3. On advertisement being issued for the present location at Saifabad, Teshil Patti, District Pratapgarh, the petitioner alongwith several other persons had applied for the outlet. A total number of ten candidates appeared for the interview and a merit panel was prepared, which showed the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 1, and the name of Satya Narayan Shukla and Surya Narayan Gupta at Serial Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. Subsequently, complaints were received and investigations were made and in the meantime, one Siddharth Singh filed a writ petition at Allahabad, bearing No. 51752 of 2005, which was disposed of videorder dated 25.7.05, directing the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh to make an enquiry regarding the genuineness of the certificates submitted by the empanelled candidates. Another writ petition was filed bearing No. 5917 (MB) of 2005 by Sri Satya Narayan Shukla. The Court after going through the enquiry report of the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh dated 16.8.05, disposed of the said petition videorder dated 17.10.05 with a direction to the Corporation to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 4. Another writ petition was filed by Sri Siddharth Singh, bearing No. 76493 of 2005, which was disposed of videorder dated 24.2.09 with a direction to the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to decide the application of the petitioner on the basis of the report of the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. 5. It was in compliance of these orders of the High Court, the General Manager has passed the impugned order dated 29.7.09 after giving opportunity to the parties concerned. 6. The petitioner, Imtiyaz Ahmad Ansari had put his claim as a physically handicapped person because of the hearing loss. 7. The petitioner had submitted a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Pratapgarh, who has shown his disability of hearing loss to the extent of 50%. The petitioner was subjected to examination at SGPGI, Lucknow, where a BERA Test was conducted and in that report, his hearing loss was found to be less than 40%. 7. The petitioner had submitted a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Pratapgarh, who has shown his disability of hearing loss to the extent of 50%. The petitioner was subjected to examination at SGPGI, Lucknow, where a BERA Test was conducted and in that report, his hearing loss was found to be less than 40%. This report was also concurred by the Medical Board constituted for the purpose. 8. The General Manager after giving opportunity to the petitioner to place his case in support of his physical disability and after considering the reports and finding that the reports say that he was having hearing loss to the extent of less than 40%, found that he does not fall within the category of physically disabled person. That being so, his candidature has been rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the General Manger has not taken into consideration the report of the Chief Medical Officer, Pratapgarh and that the SGPGI, Lucknow also in its report dated 22.9.05 has observed that the petitioner was found to be having mild to moderate deafness and it was incorrect to say that he was not physically handicapped person under the terms of the advertisement. 10. The aforesaid certificate says that in the BERA Test, it has been found that the petitioner was having mild to moderate deafness, which is not a major disability and in the report of the SGPGI, Lucknow, the hearing loss has been shown as ‘-40 dB’. 11. There is nothing on record to establish that if a person is having hearing loss to the extent of ‘–40 dB’, he would fall within the category of physically disabled person. 12. We do not find any reason to believe or infer that the petitioner’s candidature would be cancelled by the Corporation, even if, he falls within the category of physically disabled person. 13. Factually, it has been found that the petitioner was having hearing loss to the extent of less than 40%, therefore, the finding recorded, does not call for any interference by the High Court, particularly when no material has been brought on record to contradict the said finding. 14. 13. Factually, it has been found that the petitioner was having hearing loss to the extent of less than 40%, therefore, the finding recorded, does not call for any interference by the High Court, particularly when no material has been brought on record to contradict the said finding. 14. Without commenting upon the finding recorded in the impugned order by the General Manager with respect to the cancellation of the entire selection, we find that so far the petitioner is concerned, he cannot raise any grievance against the impugned order. 15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ————