ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the letter dated 18.1.2012 (Annexure-12) issued by the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited by which the petitioner?s selection as 1st empanelled candidate for petrol pump outlet at Akorhi Gola, District Rohtas has been cancelled and further for setting aside the letter dated 18.1.2012 (Annexure-13) issued by the same respondent by which the petitioner has been informed that he has been awarded marks wrongly under the parameter ‘land and infrastructure’ necessitating cancellation of the merit panel and fresh interview. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts of this case are that pursuant to an Advertisement dated 11.6.2010 the petitioner and several other persons applied for selection as dealer for retail outlet under open category within 2 kilemetres on either side of Akorhi Gola Block Office on Rajpur-Dehri Road, District Rohtas. The petitioner had along with his said application submitted a lease deed validly executed by his father on 8.7.2010 as the exclusive and sole owner of the land having the dimension of 42 metres x 42 metres within the advertised location. The petitioner was awarded 33.25 marks under the parameter of ‘Land and Infrastructure’ on the basis of the documents submitted by him. After the conclusion of the selection process the petitioner was declared No.1 in the merit panel. However, complaint was made that the land offered by the petitioner was a joint property of Shri Jagdish Pandey and the father of the petitioner, Shri Jagdeep Pandey, whereas the lease deed was executed only by Shri Jagdeep Pandey. By letter dated 18.7.2011 the petitioner was informed about the said fact and asked to reply stating that in view of the aforesaid defect marks of 33.25 awarded to him would stand changed to 23.75 marks and the provisional merit panel would also be required to be accordingly changed. 4. The petitioner admits that the khatiyan and the certificate of the Circle Officer submitted by him show that the entire 2.02 acres of land under Thana No. 134 and Khata No. 113 was entered in the name of Shri Jagdish Pandey and Shri Jagdeep Pandey, each having half share of the said land. 4. The petitioner admits that the khatiyan and the certificate of the Circle Officer submitted by him show that the entire 2.02 acres of land under Thana No. 134 and Khata No. 113 was entered in the name of Shri Jagdish Pandey and Shri Jagdeep Pandey, each having half share of the said land. In his reply the petitioner, however, informed that it is the father of the petitioner Jagdeep Pandey who had purchased 96 decimals (1 bigha and 9 katha) of land bearing khata No.188, khesra No.294 in mauza-Barahi, P.S.Dehri, District Shahabad from one Ramchandra Lal vide registered sale deed on 8.6.1957, the same being his self acquired property. It was further pointed out that after registration the said plot was mutated in the name of the father of the petitioner and rent was fixed. The certificate dated 21.9.2011 with respect to the Register II-Tenant’s Ledger standing in the name of Jagdeep Pandey was also produced. The petitioner also filed the affidavit of his uncle Jagdish Pandey to the effect that the petitioner’s father Jagdeep Pandey is the sole owner of the property and he has no concern with the same. The khatiyan of the Consolidation Office was also produced. However, by the impugned letter dated 18.1.2012 the petitioner was informed that the complaint upon investigation was found to be true and the merit panel was cancelled and re-interview was directed to be held on the basis of the documents available on the record at the time of the application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the aforesaid documents which have been submitted before the respondent authorities it is evident that the land is in the exclusive ownership of the petitioner’s father, Shri Jagdeep Pandey, who had given the same to the petitioner on a long lease in terms of the advertisement and thus the petitioner was entitled to the marks that had been originally allotted and hence the selection could not have been cancelled by the respondent authorities. 6. It is urged that if there is any doubt regarding ownership the petitioner was entitled to produce evidence, oral or documentary, to satisfy the respondents to remove the doubt. 7. 6. It is urged that if there is any doubt regarding ownership the petitioner was entitled to produce evidence, oral or documentary, to satisfy the respondents to remove the doubt. 7. It is also contended by learned counsel that while the guidelines provide that the case of the candidate has to be examined on the basis of the documents produced with the application but only the basic documents, according to him, are required to be filed with the application and other documents could be submitted for verification of the facts stated in the application. The documents submitted by the petitioner for verification are thus within the guidelines and the case of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground that they have not been filed originally. It is urged that if an explanation is called from a selected candidate then he must have a right to produce evidence otherwise calling for explanation would be of no meaning. Once the explanation had been called for and the petitioner had cleared the shadow regarding the title then it was not open to the respondents to shut the petitioner out and not look into the said evidence, when the respondents had sought explanation from the petitioner. In support of the stand learned counsel relies upon Clause 12 of the guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealer in which it is provided as follows : “Availability of suitable land for setting up of retail outlets at the advertised location is the essence of the dealership. Wherever it has been indicated in the advertisement that land is also required at the advertised location, the applicants who readily have suitable site available for setting up of Retail Outlet or have a firm commitment from the land owner for purchase/lease of site, considering the location of the land from the point of view of suitability from technical and commercial angle and rates acceptable to HPCL, applicants willing to transfer the land on ownership/long term lease to HPCL are given marks under the head ‘Land and Infrastructure’. The above is subject to considering the location of the land from the point of view of suitability from technical and commercial angle and rates acceptable to HPCL. The above is subject to considering the location of the land from the point of view of suitability from technical and commercial angle and rates acceptable to HPCL. However, the land and details offered along with the application alone will be considered for this purpose and the applicant will not be given the opportunity to offer any other land subsequently.” It is thus urged by learned counsel that the land details offered along with the application alone will be considered and no opportunity can be given to offer any other land subsequently but when doubt arises as to the ownership of the land then it is open to the applicant to clear such doubt on the basis of any other additional documents or evidence that may be in his possession. It is submitted that the petitioner has subsequently brought on the record to clarify the mistakes in the khatiyan that has been originally produced, showing the true state of affairs on the basis of other original documents in this regard including affidavit of his uncle that the land was in the exclusive ownership of the petitioner’s father who executed the lease deed. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has rightly been awarded marks by the Interview Committee and no change is required to be done and the action of the respondents cancelling the petitioner’s selection is contrary to the materials on the record. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, on the other hand, submits that it has been clearly specified in the advertisement as also in the guidelines that no new document in the application can be looked into subsequently. Thus, according to learned counsel, the petitioner was required to submit all the documents relating to the ownership of the land along with his application and cannot be permitted to file further documents in support of his stand. It is contended that the said provision is applicable to all the applicants and the petitioner cannot claim any special privilege in this regard. It is urged that if the parties are permitted to produce documents repeatedly then it would be practically impossible for the Evaluation Committee to come to any definite conclusion within a reasonable period of time. It is contended that the said provision is applicable to all the applicants and the petitioner cannot claim any special privilege in this regard. It is urged that if the parties are permitted to produce documents repeatedly then it would be practically impossible for the Evaluation Committee to come to any definite conclusion within a reasonable period of time. It is further submitted that since the said condition has been clearly laid down in the advertisement and the Guidelines for Selection the same has to be applied with respect to all the persons. 9. In this regard he relies upon Clause 12(8) and Clause 16(b) of the Guidelines. In Clause 12(8) of the Guidelines it is provided that in case situation of ownership is self with other owner(s) and the share of applicant in land is part but area more than HPCL requirement and consent letter from other owner(s) not available, the same is treated to be firm offer in which case the marks that can be allotted is 25 instead of 35 if the case is of own land which includes a long term lease. He relies upon Clause 16(b) of the guidelines which provides that the allocation of marks on various parameters with respect to “own land” or Firm offer has to be evaluated based on the verification of the land titleship documents submitted by the applicant along with his application. It is thus urged by learned counsel that evaluation cannot be extended to any other documents which the candidate may file subsequently but on the basis of the documents that have already been filed along with the application. 10. In support of his aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Tar Babu Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. : 2011(4) PLJR 185 in which relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Braj Kishore Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.: 1998(3) PLJR 34 it was held that no application/document shall be entertained if the same is filed after the last date specified in the advertisement. 11. Learned counsel also relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Monika Gupta Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.: 1998(3) PLJR 34 it was held that no application/document shall be entertained if the same is filed after the last date specified in the advertisement. 11. Learned counsel also relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Monika Gupta Vs. Union of India and others : (2010) 6 SCC 574 , in paragraphs 17 to 22 in which it has been held as follows : “17. The Selection Committee awarded marks to the candidates as per the criteria embodied in Para 13 of the brochure. The details of the marks awarded to the candidates have been incorporated in a tabular form in the impleadment application (IA No. 5 of 2010) filed by Smt Anjali Gangwar, who was placed at No.2 in the panel/merit list prepared by the Selection Committee on 29-8-2007. The same are extracted below :---------------- 18. Since the appellant secured highest marks (39.20), her name was placed at No.1 in the panel/merit list. The names of Smt Anjali Gangwar and Smt Ragini Bhardwaj, who secured 29.99 and 28.60 marks respectively, were placed at Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent 4 secured 25.72 marks and, therefore, her name did not figure among the first three candidates. 19. While awarding marks to the candidates, the Selection Committee must have taken note of the condition enshrined in Para 8 of the brochure by which it was made clear that the details given with the application alone will be considered. At the cost of repetition, we consider it necessary to observe that Respondent 4 had neither given any indication in the application form about the availability of land for godown and/or showroom and nor did she annex any document to show that she had secured lease of land or the godown and the showroom necessary for operating LPG distributorship, therefore, the Selection Committee had rightly awarded zero marks to her under the heading “infrastructure”. The file of her application does contain an affidavit dated 8.3.2004 of Ramnath, who is said to have agreed to provide his shop for the purpose of godown. Respondent 4 is also shown to have submitted Photostat copy of the sale deed executed by Shivnath Singh in favour of her husband, Shri Rajesh Kumar Gangwar, which was registered on 9.3.2004. 20. Respondent 4 is also shown to have submitted Photostat copy of the sale deed executed by Shivnath Singh in favour of her husband, Shri Rajesh Kumar Gangwar, which was registered on 9.3.2004. 20. However, as mentioned above neither of these documents bears the date on which the same were actually filed/received by the competent authority. The stamp paper on which the affidavit of Respondent 4 has been recorded bears the date of purchase as 4.3.2004 and the stamp paper on which the affidavit of Ramnath, son of Shri Janki Singh has been recorded bears the date of purchase as 5.3.2004. If the stamp papers had been purchased well before the last date fixed for the submission of application from, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to fathom any reason why the affidavits were not prepared and notarized before 7.3.2004 and filed along with the application form and why in Para 17(b) of the application form, Respondent 4 had not written the word “Yes” indicating the availability of shop for the purpose of showroom. The submission of the copy of sale deed dated 9.3.2004 before the last date specified in the advertisement is highly improbable. Undisputedly, the sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Kayamganj on 9.3.2004 between 2-3 p.m. The registration of the document must have taken some time (at least half an hour). Therefore, it was impossible for Respondent 4 to file/submit the document before the competent authority at Farrukhabad before the close of the office hours because the distance between the two places is 200 km. 21. From the above analysis of the application forms and documents filed by Respondent 4, it is clear that the Selection Committee did not commit any error by awarding “zero” marks to her under the heading “capability to provide land and infrastructure for godown and showroom”. As a corollary, we hold that the decision of Respondent 3 to cancel the panel/merit list on the ground that the Selection Committee had erred in not awarding 30 marks to Respondent 4 under the heading “infrastructure” was legally unsustainable. As a corollary, we hold that the decision of Respondent 3 to cancel the panel/merit list on the ground that the Selection Committee had erred in not awarding 30 marks to Respondent 4 under the heading “infrastructure” was legally unsustainable. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court failed to notice that in Para 17 of the application form, Respondent 4 had not indicated the availability of land for godown and/or showroom and that in view of the language of Para 8 of the brochure, the Selection Committee had no option but to ignore affidavit dated 8-3-2004 of Ramnath, son of Shri Janki Singh and copy of sale deed dated 9-3-2004 executed by Shri Shivnath Singh in favour of Shri Rajesh Kumar Gangwar (husband of Respondent 4) for the purpose of awarding marks. 22. We have no doubt that if the Division Bench had summoned the relevant records and perused the same, it would have discovered that the application of Respondent 4 was laconic in material respects and the Selection Committee had rightly awarded zero marks to her under the heading “infrastructure”. In any case, we are convinced that Respondent 3 committed serious error by recording a finding that Respondent 4 was entitled to 30 marks under the heading “infrastructure”.” 12. He also relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Niraj Kumar Vs. The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. : 2009(3) PLJR 591 , in paragraphs 9 and 10 of which it has been held as follows: “9. Mr.K.D.Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation submitted that no fresh documents could be taken into account at the stage of interview to better or enhance the position of the candidate. At the time of interview only those documents could be taken into account, copies of which were filed along with the application. 10. In my view, Mr.Chatterjee is correct, for a simple reason that once a party is required to make an application and lay claims on the basis of certain documents knowing fully well that the documents have to be evaluated, accordingly he makes an application then his right to be considered crystallizes on the day the application is made and that can not be altered subsequently because if that is permitted then all candidates would be changing their basic papers at their free will, till the time of interview. The cut off is the date when application is filed and subsequent documents can not be looked into.” 13. It is thus urged by learned counsel for the respondent HPCL that the petitioner cannot be permitted to rely upon any document which has not been filed by him at the time of filing of the application in terms of the advertisement and guidelines and the respondent authorities have rightly not looked into the same for considering the marks to be awarded to the petitioner after receipt of the complaint. It is thus urged that no error has been committed by the respondent authorities and the petitioner’s selection accordingly deserved to be cancelled. 14. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. It is true that in some cases the applicants who are not permitted to file any fresh document which was not filed at the time of filing the original application may have to face hardship and it also appears that the case of the petitioner falls in the said category. However, the important aspect of the matter is that the advertisement as also the Guidelines are categorical that only the documents which have been filed by the applicant along with the application can be looked into at the time of evaluation. Clause 12 of the Guidelines for Selection of Retail Outlet Dealers clearly provides that the land and details offered along with the application alone will be considered for this purpose. Further the norms for evaluating the candidates based on various parameters of land and infrastructure as given in Clause 16(b) of the Guidelines, clearly states that the same must be based on verification of the land titleship documents submitted by the applicant along with his application. 15. Once the said criteria have been laid down in the Guidelines it is not open to the Evaluation Committee to go beyond the same and look into documents which had not been filed along with the application. Admittedly the petitioner had not filed with his application many of the documents which he has produced subsequently in assertion of his rights and which alone would go to show that the father of the petitioner was not merely having ownership of half share in the concerned land, rather he was the sole owner of the land. Admittedly the petitioner had not filed with his application many of the documents which he has produced subsequently in assertion of his rights and which alone would go to show that the father of the petitioner was not merely having ownership of half share in the concerned land, rather he was the sole owner of the land. In the subsequent stage the documents were brought on the record and it is not open to the Evaluation Committee to look into the same. The said criteria applies to all the candidates and it appears to be correct in view of the fact that once a party is required to make an application and lay claims on the basis of certain documents knowing full well that the documents have to be evaluated, he ought to have applied with full details, otherwise it would be very difficult for the Evaluation Committee to check the basic facts within a reasonable period of time. The failure of the petitioner to provide all the documents at the time of filing of his application automatically debars him from filing fresh documents. This is also borne out from the decision of the Apex Court in Monika Gupta’s case (supra) as also of this Court in Niraj Kumar’s case (supra). 16. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that once explanation has been sought then it is open to the candidate to satisfy the authorities by producing further oral and documentary evidence is clearly contrary to what has been laid down in the Guidelines for Selection of Retail Outlet Dealers. Since the Evaluation Committee is restrained from looking into the new documents, explanation sought from the petitioner by the respondent authorities can only mean that he has a right to support his case on the basis of what he has stated in the application along with the documents in support of the same so as to be given the marks that he claims on the basis of evaluation. 17. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned letters/orders dated 18.1.2012. The writ application must, therefore, fail. It is accordingly dismissed. ?