JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/letter dated 7.3.2007 issued by respondent No. 3. 2. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that an advertisement inviting the applicants for retail outlet dealership on various conditions was published on 10.1.2006. The petitioner also applied for the same and was called for interview on 29.6.2006 alongwith other applicants. After participation in the interview and after the interview was completed on the aforesaid date the result was declared on the same day placing the petitioner at 2nd place. That one Awadhesh Gupta who stood at 1st place died on 20.1.2007. Hence in accordance with the conditions given in Rule 17.1 and 17.2 of Brochure of I.B.P. Company Limited for licence the petitioner applied for issuance of retail outset dealership in his favour. The respondent No. 3 competent authority instead of deciding the aforesaid representation dated 8.3.2007 intimated that the entire selection made in pursuance of advertisement dated 10.1.2006 has been cancelled due to certain unavoidable reasons. 3. Against the writ petition counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which they submitted that there were certain discrepancies in the selection process as a result of which entire selection which was made in pursuance of advertisement aforesaid was cancelled. 4. In the rejoinder affidavit filed against the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the averments made in the counter affidavit are incorrect and the petitioner stressed on the point that according to the conditions given in the result of interview where it was mentioned that if the No. 1 candidate is not found suitable/fails to fulfil the terms and conditions of the award of dealership, 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. 5. It is further contended in the rejoinder affidavit that the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court had quashed the similar order and held that instead of cancelling selection process in total and starting de novo selection process it will be more proper to restart the process from where the discrepancies appear to have vitiated. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents and perused the record. 7. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents and perused the record. 7. The sole question of controversy involved in the present writ petition is as to whether on account of discrepancy which may be treated to be material, it will be proper on the part of the competent authority to cancel the entire selection process and start the process of selection or it will be more appropriate to take further steps to remove these discrepancies from the stage from where they appear to have come in light. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner referred a ruling in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21978 of 2007 Rajesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others of Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Hon’ble B.S. Chauhan, J. and Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J the extract of which is as follows : “we fail to understand as to how this discrepancy could not be removed by continuing with the same selection process and taking up the matter from the point it stood vitiated.” “In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that cancellation of the entire selection process is unwarranted and uncalled for. If any fault has been committed that has been done on the part of the Corporation thus, no fault can be found by either of the applicant. They had applied in pursuance of the advertisement made by the Corporation. Their applications had been processed and merit list etc. had been prepared by the Corporation. In case, the Corporation feels that removal of the discrepancies, pointed out by the Corporation in the Counter Affidavit was necessary the Corporation was free to call the same applicant for interview, again and after furnishing the information as explained in the counter affidavit they could have been given an opportunity to give their views in writing and the Corporation ought to have prepared the select list a fresh." “We do not see any justification in the submissions made by Shri Prakash Padia that the circumstances were so inevitable that the entire selection had to be cancelled and the selection process would have been saved from taking recourse to the point it stood vitiated. “In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. “In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 7.3.2007 is hereby quashed.” “We, therefore, direct the Corporation to continue with the same selection process, but take the recourse from the point it stood vitiated and the opinion of the Corporation and conclude the selection process at the earliest. In case the respondent Corporation seeks any information from the applicants, needless to say that they shall furnish the same without delay so that the Corporation may conclude the proceedings expeditiously. No costs.” 8. Thus, in consonance with the aforesaid Ruling we find it proper that the order cancelling the entire selection process on the ground of discrepancies is not justified and accordingly, the order dated 7.3.2007 is quashed and it is directed that the Corporation shall continue with the same selection process and to take recourse from the point it stood vitiated and shall complete the same preferably within a period of one month and shall consider afresh the representation given by the petitioner dated 12.2.2007 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one month thereafter. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of. ————