JUDGMENT B.N.MAHAPATRA, J. : The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the selection of opposite party No. 3-Smt. Sasmita Sahoo as LPG Gas Distributor in respect of Pichukuli RGGLV Point in Khurda District on the ground that she has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the advertisement inasmuch as she does not belong to the residential area of the advertised location. Further prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a direction to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to select him as LPG Gas distributor for Pichukuli Centre. 2.Petitioner's case in a nut-shell is that pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1 he along with others applied for engagement as Distributor under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme (for short, "RGGLV") for Pichukuli Centre in the district of Khurda. In pursuance of the advertisement, three corrigendum were issued and in the last corrigendum the last date for receiving application was extended till 31st December, 2009. It is submitted that the petitioner downloaded the brochure from the website of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for selection of LPG distributor under RGGLV Scheme which discloses the mode of selection, eligibility criteria basic facilities required for operation of RGGLV, evaluation criteria, selection process etc. Opposite party No. 1 issued a letter on 09.02.2010 intimating the petitioner that the serial number of the application of the petitioner is BBS/PCK/121. It was further requested in the said letter to furnish Schedule Tribe Certificate from the competent authority. It was also intimated to the petitioner that he had not mentioned the date of application in his application form which had to be done by 02.03.2010, otherwise his application was to be treated as invalid. On verifying the accuracy of the date as given in the application dated 17.12.2009 the Field Verification was carried out on 09.04.2010 and on the basis of such verification, the petitioner was intimated that he had violated Clause 3(g) of the advertisement. According to the opposite parties, since the petitioner has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for RGGLV selection, selection of petitioner for award for RGGLV LPG distributorship for the location of Pichukuli in the district of Khurda has been cancelled. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.Mr. According to the opposite parties, since the petitioner has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for RGGLV selection, selection of petitioner for award for RGGLV LPG distributorship for the location of Pichukuli in the district of Khurda has been cancelled. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.Mr. G.N.Padhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that advertisement was made for appointment of distributor under RGGLV for Pichukuli Centre in the district of Khurda in the State of Odisha. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner participated under ST Category in the district of Khurda. Opposite party No. 3-Sasmita Sahoo applied for Kalapathar in the open category in the district of Khurda at Sl. No. 93. The petitioner being single candidate should have been selected for Pichukuli Centre in the district of Khurda. Opposite party No. 3 could not be selected for Kalapathar centre. On 15.06.2010 the guideline of the RGGLV was modified to the extent that selected candidate can be asked for alternative land and the application should not be rejected on flimsy ground. On 08.09.2010 without giving the benefit of the modified guideline and without giving any opportunity to rectify the defects the selection of the petitioner was cancelled. On 31.10.2010 second advertisement was published for Pichukuli Centre as open category. On 23.11.2010 opposite party No. 3 who was an applicant for Kalapathar Centre in the district of Cuttack purchased a piece of land at Pichukuli. There was three applicants for Pichukuli Centre including the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 and other writ petitioner. Last date for receiving application was fixed to 03.12.2010. After scrutiny, the petitioner was intimated that he did not obtain minimum of 80% of marks in the eligibility criteria. The application of opposite party No. 3 was not rejected even though she had not produced any residential certificate. On 28.06.2011 draw was made pursuant to the second advertisement and opposite party No. 3 was selected. Residential certificate was granted by the Tahasildar, Bolagarh in favour of opposite party No. 3 on 14.07.2011. On 23.07.2011 letter of intent was issued in favour of opposite party No. 3. 4.Mr. On 28.06.2011 draw was made pursuant to the second advertisement and opposite party No. 3 was selected. Residential certificate was granted by the Tahasildar, Bolagarh in favour of opposite party No. 3 on 14.07.2011. On 23.07.2011 letter of intent was issued in favour of opposite party No. 3. 4.Mr. Padhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the process of selection the Oil Marketing Companies (OMC) faced a lot of problem in selecting a candidate, who became ineligible due to the provision contained in Clause 3(g) of the advertisement for which the OMCs amended the guideline on 15.06.2010 incorporating that in case the land mentioned in the application is not suitable as per the criteria given in the text of the advertisement/application and the candidate has an alternative plot of land in the advertised location which is more suitable for godown for the customers then the selected candidate can be allowed to construct the facilities at the alternative plot of land. Therefore, the opposite parties should have allowed the member to substitute one of the suitable plot. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to transfer the amount available in current account to his SB Account. Hence, the action of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is illegal and arbitrary. 5.Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 reiterating the grounds taken in the counter affidavit submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in disqualifying the petitioner. Selection of opposite party No. 3 has been done strictly in the line with the guidelines laid down for selection of LPG distributor under RGGLVY and all the allegations of illegality, arbitrariness, mala fide etc. are denied and disputed being false. Since the petitioner has been unsuccessful in getting the said LPG distributorship despite applying twice, he is making the baseless allegations devoid of any merits. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6.On the rival contentions advanced by the parties, the following questions that fall for consideration by this Court are : (i)Whether rejection of application of the petitioner is just and proper ? (ii)Whether selection of opposite party No. 3 is legal and valid ? (iii)What order ? 7.So far as question No. (i) is concerned, the Field Verification was carried out on 09.04.2010. (ii)Whether selection of opposite party No. 3 is legal and valid ? (iii)What order ? 7.So far as question No. (i) is concerned, the Field Verification was carried out on 09.04.2010. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 conducted the field verification and found out the accuracy of the date as given in the application dated 17.12.2009. The Field Verification was carried out on 09.04.2010, wherein the following observations were made : "As per the guideline for RGGLV, applicant should have been own land (i.e. own means having clear title over the property in the name of the applicant or family unit) at the advertise location. (1) You have confirmed having land at Khata No. 184 and Plot No. 898, 1066 at advertised location i.e. Pichukuli. However, it was found during Field Verification Committee that above said land is not in the name of your family unit. (2) You have declared an amount of Rs. 2,03,000/- in SB Account. However, it was found that the above said amount is in current account. (3) You have declared an amount of Rs. 1,07,880/- under other asset/property of family but valuation Certificate by the Government Approved valuer not submitted." Referring to the above observations, the petitioner's application for selection for RGGLV LPG distributorship for location of Pichukuli in the district of Khurda has been cancelled on two grounds i.e. (i) the petitioner does not possess any land in the advertised location of Pichukuli Centre and (ii) the petitioner does not have any money in his SB Account as required under the advertisement. 8.So far as the first allegation is concerned, the petitioner's submission is that as per the advertisement dated 15.06.2010 the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to substitute a better and suitable plot. The amended guideline dated 30.06.2010 is of no help to the petitioner for the reason that as per the advertisement the petitioner had to provide a suitable plot of land in the service area and if after selection he could offer a better plot of land in the advertised area, he should be permitted to do so. But in the present case, the petitioner had not furnished any document with regard to having land in the advertised area. But in the present case, the petitioner had not furnished any document with regard to having land in the advertised area. Therefore, the amended notification is of no help and not applicable to the case of the petitioner, who has not furnished any land owned by him or his family members within the advertised area. Therefore, on this ground, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9.Further, it was pointed out that the petitioner had an amount of Rs. 2,03,000/- in SB Account. However, it was found that the said amount was lying in his current account. Hence, the petitioner has violated the conditions stipulated in the advertisement and the eligibility criteria. Petitioner's stand that opportunity should have been given to him to transfer the amount lying in current account to SB Account is not sustainable in law. 10.As the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, there is no reason to afford opportunity to the petitioner to transfer the amount from current account to SB Account. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner's application is perfectly valid and justified. 11.Question No. (ii) is as to whether selection of opposite party No. 3 is legal and valid. This Court has already declared the selection of opposite party No. 3 as legal vide judgment delivered in W.P.(C) No. 18570 of 2011. Therefore, the selection of opposite party No. 3-Sasmita Sahoo is set aside. 12.With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. I agree. Petition disposed of.