JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Respondent issued an advertisement vide Annexure P-1 dated 11.10.2010, which appeared in the daily Edition of Punjab Kesari whereby applications were invited for the purpose of allotment of L.P.G. distributorship under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Liquid Petroleum Gas Vitark Scheme (hereinafter to as RGGLV for short) in Nagrota Surian, District Kangra. The last date of receipt of applications was 10.11.2010. Petitioner submitted an application. It was duly acknowledged by the Board. Petitioner was informed vide Annexure P-4 dated 9.1.2011 that the land mentioned in item No. 9 of application was in the name of his father, who was not member of family unit. In these circumstances, petitioner was called upon to enclose document supporting that he owns the land in advertised location. It was also pointed out that affidavit as per appendix C was given by his father, who was not member of family unit and the financial year was not mentioned in affidavit as per appendix B. He was requested to make a representation on or before 8.2.2011. He made representation. He was informed vide Annexure P-7 that he had qualified for draw for selection. He was requested to be present along with identity card issued by any Government Department for the draw at 11.00 A.M. on 13.5.2011. Petitioner was declared selected in the draw on 13.5.2011. However, the fact of the matter is that on 28.9.2011, petitioner was informed that during the process of field verification of credentials carried out by team of two officers, it was observed that the land was transferred in the name of petitioner on 28.1.2011 and mutated on 4.3.2011, which was after the date of application, i.e. 10.11.2010. 2. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate has strenuously argued that action of respondents to reject the candidature of petitioner vide Annexure P-8 dated 28.9.2011 is arbitrary. According to him, his client has been permitted to make representation vide Annexure P-4 and the deficiencies were removed by the petitioner and on that basis he was found qualified. 3. Ms. Vandana Misra has vehemently argued that the petitioner should have owned land before the last date of receipt of applications, i.e. 10.11.2010 and since the mutation was attested in his favour on 4.3.2011, he was not eligible. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. 3. Ms. Vandana Misra has vehemently argued that the petitioner should have owned land before the last date of receipt of applications, i.e. 10.11.2010 and since the mutation was attested in his favour on 4.3.2011, he was not eligible. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. The last date of receipt of application as per Annexure P-1 was 10.11.2010. Respondents have placed on record brochure on selection of RGGLV vide Annexure R-1. Clause 4 deals with common eligibility criteria for all categories. Expression "family unit" has been explained in clause 4 (e). It reads thus : "Family Unit" in case of married person/applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her spouse and their unmarried sons/daughters. In case of unmarried person/applicant, family unit shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brothers and unmarried sisters. In case of divorcee, family unit shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried sons/unmarried daughters whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, family unit shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughters." 6. One of the eligibility criteria was that the candidate should own a suitable land (plot) of minimum 20 metre x 24 metre in dimension at the advertised RGGLV location for construction of LPG cylinder storage godown. The expression own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member of the family unit as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm. Para 12 of the brochure deals with selection process. According to para 12.1, a committee consisting of two officers of the concerned Oil Company has to do scrutiny of the application and award marks to the applicants based on the information given in the application. Thereafter, the selection is to be done by draw of lots out of all eligible applicants securing minimum qualifying marks. Minimum qualifying marks are 60% for locations reserved under SC/ST category and minimum 80% marks for all other category locations. The list of ineligible applicants, eligible but not qualified applicants and qualified applicants for draw of lot was to be made available on the notice board of the concerned office of the Oil Company as well as on the website of the concerned Oil Company. The applicants are required to be individually informed about the status of their application. The list of ineligible applicants, eligible but not qualified applicants and qualified applicants for draw of lot was to be made available on the notice board of the concerned office of the Oil Company as well as on the website of the concerned Oil Company. The applicants are required to be individually informed about the status of their application. Ineligible and eligible but not qualified applicants are permitted to make representations within 15 days. Thereafter all the eligible candidates who had qualified are required to ask to report at a specified place on specified date and time for draw of lot. The same is to be notified in the local newspapers. All token numbers are required to be put in an empty box in the presence of the candidates for draw of lots. It would be apt at this stage to quote clause 12.9 and 12.10 as under: "12.9. Field verification will be carried out for the selected candidate and if the information given in the application by the applicant is found to be correct, letter of intent will be issued to the selected candidate. 12.10. In case of rejection of selected candidate due to findings in the Field Investigation or if selected candidate is unable to develop facilities for Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak within the specified time, then his candidature will be cancelled and draw will be held again from the remaining qualified eligible candidates to select the next candidate following the procedure as mentioned above in para 12.3 to 12.6." 7. In the instant case, the last date of receipt of applications was 10.11.2010. Petitioner has been informed that the land mentioned in item No. 9 of application form was in the name of his father, who was not member of family unit. Petitioner was called upon to enclose any document supporting that he owns land in advertised location. The land has been mutated in favour of the petitioner on 4.3.2011. Thus, the petitioner was not eligible on the last date of receipt of application, i.e. 10.11.2010. There is no merit in the submission of Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate that the deficiency has been made good in sequel to Annexure P-4 dated 9.1.2011. The land has been mutated in favour of the petitioner on 4.3.2011. Thus, the petitioner was not eligible on the last date of receipt of application, i.e. 10.11.2010. There is no merit in the submission of Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate that the deficiency has been made good in sequel to Annexure P-4 dated 9.1.2011. The petitioner has been informed vide Annexure P-7 that he was qualified for draw for selection of RGGLV but the field verification was still to be carried out by a team of two officers to verify the credentials as per para 12.10 of the brochure. It is settled law that the eligibility of all the candidates is to be seen either on the last date of submission of application or as provided under the Rules. In this case, the eligibility of all the candidates was to be seen on 10.11.2010. The submission of Mr. R.K. Sharma that the last date prescribed was not statutory merits rejection. The date had already been prescribed in the advertisement and the petitioner ought to have been owner of the land on last date of receipt of application, i.e. 10.11.2010. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made here in above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.