JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri S.M.A. Abdy, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Prakash Padia, Advocate on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation and Shri Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 6. The short controversy involved in the present petition is in respect of the method of the evaluation of inter se merit of two female applicants both of whom are neither widow nor unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents for the purpose of selection as dealer of the oil company. 2. The controversy revolve around the interpretation of two clauses, as provided in the marketing guidelines for selection of Petrol/Diesel retail outlet dealers dated 15.09.2011. The Clause reads as follows : Note to Clause 14 : Widows or unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents applying for dealerships reserved for ‘Women’ category, SC/ST persons applying under SC/ST reserved category and War widows will not be evaluated on parameters “Capability to provide land and infrastructure/facilities’ (35 marks) and ‘Capability to provide finance’ (25 marks). In respect of these candidates, evaluation will be done only based on the remaining parameters and for final comparison, the 0% marks scored over the ‘’total applicable marks’’ would be the basis. In respect of Widows or unmarried women as mentioned above applying under category reserved for ‘Women’, for determining their priority over other women candidates, the marks scored by other women applicants under these two parameters will be excluded from the total marks scored by them”. Clause 5(b) :— Widows, unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents applying for dealerships reserved for ‘women category’, SC/ST persons applying under SC/ST reserved category and war widows will not be assessed under the parameters ‘capability to provide land and infrastructure/facilities and capability to arrange finance’. Clause 5© :— For determining priority to be give to Widows, unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents applying for dealerships reserved for ‘women category’ over other women candidates, the marks secured by other women under these two parameters will be excluded from the total marks secured by them. Widows have to submit death certificate of her husband and also an affidavit as per Appendix-A.’ 3. Widows have to submit death certificate of her husband and also an affidavit as per Appendix-A.’ 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner before this Court and respondent No. 6 both do not fall within the category of Widows or Women of more than 40 years of age without earning parents. Therefore, on a simple reading of clauses 5(b) and 5(c) quoted above, it is clear that the provision for exclusion of marks under capability to provide land and infrastructure (35 marks) and capability to provide finance (25 marks) (herein after referred to as the Corpus marks) shall not apply. Same would be the impact of note appended to Clause 14 as quoted above. For the inter se merit of the petitioner and respondent No. 6, corpus marks have to be taken into consideration. 4. From the evaluation chart of the inter se merit of the petitioner and the respondent No. 6, it is apparently clear that the total marks received after such evaluation by the petitioner were 85.09 while those received by respondent No. 6 were only 54.50. 5. However, on a misreading of the aforesaid clause, the respondent Corporation has excluded the marks which were awarded to the petitioner under the heading of Capability to provide infrastructure facility to the tune of 29.5 marks. After such exclusion, the respondent No. 6 had been placed at serial No. 1 while the respondent No. 6 has been placed at serial No. 2. 6. On behalf of respondent it has been contended that once an application has been received from a widows or women of more than 40 years of age without earning parents, then all female category candidates have to be evaluated after excluding the marks to be provided for the corpus fund. 7. In our opinion the contention so raised is wholly misconceived. It is only if an eligible candidate within the category of widows or women of more than 40 years of age without earning parents is to be evaluated vis-a-vis a female candidate not falling within the same category than the marks for the corpus fund have to be excluded and not otherwise. 8. While evaluating the inter se merit of two candidates both not falling within the category of widows or women of more than 40 years of age without earning parents, such corpus marks have to be taken into consideration is not provided. 8. While evaluating the inter se merit of two candidates both not falling within the category of widows or women of more than 40 years of age without earning parents, such corpus marks have to be taken into consideration is not provided. 9. The selection made by the Corporation, in the facts of this case, is vitiated for wrongful exclusion of corpus marks as awarded to the petitione