JUDGMENT : Mr. S. Siri Jagan, J. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 were applicants for grant of a licence for running a LPG distributorship of the first respondent. After evaluating the various criteria fixed for selection for grant of the dealership, the first respondent prepared a rank list in which the second respondent was given the 1st rank and the third respondent the 2nd rank. The petitioner was given the 3rd rank. The petitioner challenges the marks given to the second respondent for experience. According to the petitioner, the second respondent obtained marks for experience by producing bogus experience certificates, copies of which produced as Exts. P2 and P3. The contention of the petitioner is that in Exts. P2 and P3 certificates, it is certified that the second respondent worked in a firm called M/s. Sree Agencies, as a Marketing Manager from December 2005 to March 2007 at Malappuram and as an Insurance consultant from August 2006 also at Malappuram. The petitioner contends that the second respondent was actually a student of M. Tech course during the relevant time covered by Exts. P2 and P3 certificates. Therefore, Exts. P2 and P3 are bogus documents and therefore no marks could have been given to second respondent for experience relying on Exts. P2 and P3 is his contention. Petitioner contends that if marks given to the second respondent for Exts. P2 and P3 are excluded, the third respondent would be the 1st rank holder and the petitioner would be the 2nd rank holder. Since the third respondent has already obtained another distributorship, he cannot get this distributorship and consequently the petitioner would be entitled to this distributorship, is his contention. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavits seeking to refute the contentions of the petitioner. The fact that the second respondent was actually studying for his M. Tech course during the period covered by Exts. P2 and P3 certificates is not disputed by the respondents 1 and 2. Their only contention is that the petitioner was working part-time and therefore, there is nothing wrong in giving the marks for experience covered by Exts. P2 and P3 certificates. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As I have already stated the fact that during the period covered by Ext. Their only contention is that the petitioner was working part-time and therefore, there is nothing wrong in giving the marks for experience covered by Exts. P2 and P3 certificates. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As I have already stated the fact that during the period covered by Ext. P2 and P3 certificates, the second respondent was a M. Tech student in the Cochin University for Science and Technology. The contention that it was part time on the face of it appears to be totally unacceptable for several reasons. First of all, in Exts. P2 and P3 there is no mention that the second respondent was working part time. Secondly, ordinarily, it would be very difficult for a M. Tech student to work part time as a Marketing Manager of a gas distributor and an Insurance consultant. Thirdly, as per Ext. P2 certificate the second respondent was working as Marketing Manager in Malappuram from December 2005 to March 2007. Ext. P3 certificate certifies that the second respondent worked as an Insurance consultant with Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. since August 2006. The period of Exts. P2 and P3 overlaps. Respondents 1 and 2 have not been able to give a satisfactory explanation for the same. Lastly, and more importantly as proved by Ext. P4, the second respondent was a M. Tech student of CUSAT which is at Ernakulam. The fairy tale that a student studying for M. Tech in Cochin was working part time as Marketing Manager and Insurance consultant at Malappuram is totally unbelievable. That being so I am satisfied that the petitioner has sufficiently proved that the second respondent was not eligible for marks for experience based on Exts. P2 and P3 experience certificates. 5. Accordingly the grant of distributorship to second respondent is hereby quashed. The first respondent is directed to re-assess the marks of the 2nd respondent afresh excluding the marks for Exts. P2 and P3 certificates of the second respondent. The distributorship shall be awarded in accordance with the marks so recomputed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till fresh proceedings are issued and distributorship granted, the second respondent shall be allowed to provisionally continue to run the distributorship. The writ petition is allowed as above.