Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.6.2010 and thereby direct the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the retail outlet petrol/ diesel bunk granted in favour of 3rd respondent by the 1st respondent and further to grant dealership in respect of retail outlet of petrol/diesel bunk to her. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the land at Punjai in Survey No.12/1B, measuring 0.17 acre, Punjai Survey No.12/1A, measuring 0.49 acre, totally to an extent of 0.66 acre at No.149, Boodur Village, Maduranthakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 3. The Indian Oil Corporation called for an application for allotment of Petrol / Diesel rural retail outlet. The petitioner along with the third respondent and others applies for allotment of dealership to the first respondent. The petitioner was called for an interview on 14.6.2010, where she has produced her proof of age, educational proof, residence proof and physical fitness proof. She also produced community certificate and also an affidavit. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the result of the interview was not announced for quite some time, and only when the third respondent converted his agricultural land to set up petrol/ diesel rural retail outlet, that the petitioner came to know, that allotment had been made in favour of the third respondent. 5. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner, that the third respondent's land is not suitable for establishment of retail outlet, as the channel water will get obstructed due to setting up of retail outlet. That 'no objection certificate' was obtained by the third respondent by illegal means. 6. The petitioner submits that she is a better candidate for grant of dealership than the third respondent. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved by allotment in favour of the third respondent, sent a detailed representation to respondents 1 and 2, questioning the allotment of dealership in favour of the third respondent. 8. The petitioner also challenged the educational qualification of the third respondent, on the ground that the third respondent did not submit original certificate at the time of interview. 9. 8. The petitioner also challenged the educational qualification of the third respondent, on the ground that the third respondent did not submit original certificate at the time of interview. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that as per the condition of the eligibility as disclosed, the applicant was to produce the original of the affidavits, and self attested copies of other supporting documents along with application form. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner goes contrary to the conditions of allotment as there was no requirement to produce original certificate of Education. It is not disputed by the petitioner, that the third respondent produced xerox copy of the SSLC certificate. 11. The contention of the petitioner that the original was not produced at the time of interview stands belied as per information disclosed under the Right to Information Act, showing that the third respondent had produced the original at the time of interview which was verified with the xerox copy of the certificate, and after verification, the original certificate was returned. 12. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted. It is not for this Court to assess comparative merit of the cadidates' case, as it was the job of the selection committee who was to grant the dealership to the parties. The contention of the learned counsel, that the petitioner was a better candidate also cannot be accepted. 13. No merit. Dismissed. 14. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. No costs.