JUDGMENT Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J.:- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) issued an advertisement in the Press on 1.12.2007 for distributorship of LPG at various places in Punjab and Chandigarh. Clause 11 of the advertisement laid down the selection criteria based on marks obtained on evaluation of information provided by the applicants responding to the public notice. One such piece of information demanded was regarding experience. The petitioner was one of the applicants. He was called for interview on 6.7.2009. The petitioner was placed at merit position No.3 with score of 28.33 marks. Applicant-Neelam Chander was placed at serial No.1 with 29 marks. One Sham Sunder Sabharwal was placed above the petitioner and below Neelam Chander on earning the same number of marks as the petitioner. To break the tie between the two, Sham Sunder Sabharwal being younger in age was placed higher in merit in terms of the advertisement. There is no dispute with regard to these facts. 2. The complaint of the petitioner was that his experience certificate had not been considered properly by the Selection Committee in order to favour Neelam Chander. As a matter of fact, he claimed that he was on the permanent management staff of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) since 1996 and had experience of more than 12 years in the field of LPG dealership and retail outlet of petrol-stations. Form 16 issued by BPCL to him was relied on. 3. The petitioner made a complaint against Neelam Chander for submitting fictitious certificate of experience to obtain distributorship. The petitioner’s complaint was rejected on 22.7.2009 for the reason that marks for experience were awarded on quality of experience and not the amount of it. This angle of selection was evaluated on the basis of response to questions put during interview. 4. Aggrieved by the rejection of his complaint against Neelam Chander, the petitioner filed CWP No.21530 of 2009 in this Court questioning the experience of Neelam Chander. It may be mentioned that Sham Sunder Sabharwal though shortlisted had given up his claim on account of having secured a distributorship of another oil company. Before the High Court, the petitioner placed reliance on an experience certificate dated 2.7.2009 issued in his favour. The same reads as follows: “BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES JAMMU TERRITORY DATE:02.07.2009 To whom it may concern This is to certify that Mr. Before the High Court, the petitioner placed reliance on an experience certificate dated 2.7.2009 issued in his favour. The same reads as follows: “BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES JAMMU TERRITORY DATE:02.07.2009 To whom it may concern This is to certify that Mr. Jaimal Kumar is a permanent management staff of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. He joined in the Corporation as Management staff in September 1996. Presently, he is posted at Jammu (J&K). For Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Manager (I/C) Jammu Depot. Sd/- Jagwinder Singh Manager (Operation) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Jammu Depot.” 5. The learned Single Judge of this Court by a detailed order dated 10.4.2010 set aside the selection on the issue of experience of Neelam Chander allegedly having worked in a gas agency run by her father at Karnal and therefore, fresh consideration was ordered but limited to the issue of experience of the rival candidates. It was also directed that the reexamination would be done by re-constituting the interview committee and the probe would be confined to the documents brought before this Court for consideration. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, respondent-HPCL filed an intra-court appeal bearing LPA No.639 of 2010. Neelam Chander equally aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge preferred LPA No.849 of 2010 which two appeals were heard together and dismissed by order dated 9.8.2010. The Division Bench of this Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and found that the experience certificates issued to Neelam Chander were clearly arbitrary. The core area of dispute arose on account of award of four marks for experience to Neelam Chander and three marks to the present petitioner. One fact which needs to be highlighted is that the letter dated 2.7.2009 was an additional document produced for the first time in writ proceedings. 7. In the fresh exercised carried out under Court directions, the marks awarded to Neelam Chander for experience were reduced from 29 to 27. Sham Sunder Sabharwal though called for fresh interview did not participate since he had already been shortlisted for dealership of another oil company. 8. 7. In the fresh exercised carried out under Court directions, the marks awarded to Neelam Chander for experience were reduced from 29 to 27. Sham Sunder Sabharwal though called for fresh interview did not participate since he had already been shortlisted for dealership of another oil company. 8. On re-examination of the matter, HPCL concluded that Neelam Chander had submitted a false declaration of having worked at M/s Bhagwaria Gas Agency, Karnal, while she was studying as a full time student at Government College, Chandigarh and staying in hostel throughout the period the certificate covered. Her experience in the fields of Household Furnishing Goods or Practicing Advocate made her entitled to two marks. That is how her marks were reduced from 29 to 27 taking her out of the merit panel. 9. On remand the case of the petitioner was dealt with at the hands of the competent authority in the following words: “Further in case of Mr. Jaimal Kumar, he had produced a copy of experience certificate dated 02.07.2009 before Hon’ble High Court. During re-interview he was not confident in his responses on certain questions related to the matter an oil company officer was supposed to know. The interview committee had reservation to believe the genuinity of his experience certificate. The committee has referred it to BPCL and BPCL has confirmed that the experience certificate produced by him in the Hon’ble Court was not issued by them. So, due to this falsity the candidature of Jaimal Kumar also stands cancelled on account of furnishing false document.” 10. As a result of the fresh findings arrived at, HPCL chose the alternative way of invoking its rights as provided for in Clause 17 of the Dealer Selection Guidelines (DSG) and to repudiate and scrap the merit panel in toto. 11. Dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 8.11.2010 rejecting the merit panel, the petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected and the rejection letter dated 30.3.2011 was communicated to the petitioner. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner made representation dated 25.11.2011 for review of the final decision. When his representation was not decided, he approached this Court again through CWP No.18810 of 2012 which was withdrawn with liberty to pursue administrative remedies. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner made representation dated 25.11.2011 for review of the final decision. When his representation was not decided, he approached this Court again through CWP No.18810 of 2012 which was withdrawn with liberty to pursue administrative remedies. The following order was passed on 8.10.2012: “Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length prays for permission to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to pursue his remedy with the respondents. Permitted to do so. Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid granted.” 12. In the light of this order the petitioner pleads that he submitted another representation to the respondents to reconsider the matter in the light of order passed by this Court. A typographical error was brought to the notice of HPCL by an additional letter dated 16.1.2013. In response to the representation resting at Annexure P-12 dated nil, HPCL addressed a letter dated 11.2.2013 stating that a speaking order already stood passed on 8.11.2010 by the Company under remand directions where the entire select panel stood withdrawn. With this observation the representation was disposed of. In the above background, the present writ petition has been preferred. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length. It is argued that the letter dated 2.7.2009 was not produced for purposes of experience but was attached with the writ petition to show the place of posting of the petitioner in the Jammu Territory and the same was not part of record before the interview committee and therefore, the same cannot be used as a ploy to cancel the candidature of the petitioner on the finding that the letter was not issued by HPCL at all. The selection committee re-constituted under the orders of this Court in the first writ petition was referred by HPCL to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and BPCL had confirmed that the letter was not issued by the company. 14. Be that as it may, the petitioner used the letter in writ proceedings to persuade the Court that his experience was wrongly evaluated when this Court while deciding CWP No.12530 of 2009 had in categoric terms directed as follows: “The reconsideration of the candidature of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent will stay confined to the documents that had been brought before this Court for consideration. The decision shall be taken within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.” 15. The respondent-HPCL would have had no jurisdiction except to stay confined to consideration of documents that had been brought before this Court for consideration. This is apparent when the learned Single Judge specifically referred to the contents of the letter dated 2.7.2009 (P-6 at running page 59 of the paper book) where his Lordship observed as follows: “The Interview Committee may be reconstituted, which shall examine only the records that have been placed so far namely of the petitioner’s experience as management staff with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at Jammu and marks that have been assigned for the 3rd respondent’s experience under the three heads namely the alleged experience of working in Bhagwaria Gas Agency, experience in marketing household furnishing goods and the experience as a practicing advocate.” 16. It follows as a consequence of the above extract of the order that although the said letter was not part of original selection record but was made sole reason for reviewing the petitioner’s experience on the petitioner having induced this Court to pass the order confining re-examination to the letter dated 2.7.2009, and therefore, it has not been fair of the petitioner to side step it by pleading in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the additional document was attached just to show his place of posting and nothing more. The petitioner did not appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.4.2010. He has not made any prayer in this petition that that order deserves to be reviewed. The petitioner in my view cannot be permitted to play ducks and drakes with the Court. Once the document has been found to be false, this itself is sufficient ground not to invoke the equity jurisdiction of this Court in his favour. 17. In Shiv Shankar Dal Mills versus State of Haryana, (1980) 2 SCC 437 , the Supreme Court observed on the equitable jurisdiction exercised by this Court under the Constitution as follows: “Article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. 17. In Shiv Shankar Dal Mills versus State of Haryana, (1980) 2 SCC 437 , the Supreme Court observed on the equitable jurisdiction exercised by this Court under the Constitution as follows: “Article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order as public interest dictates and equity projects: Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private interests are involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations as of public interest ...” 18. If the respondent-corporation had made a mess of the selection, it should be left to clear the mess in exercise of its power under Clause 17 of the distributorship guidelines. In exercise of such power it could annul the merit panel and withdraw the select list in toto and start a fresh exercise for award of distributorship in accordance with law. This Court finds no valid reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 8.11.2010 (P-9) passed pursuant to the directions of this Court in CWP No.12530 of 2009 filed by the petitioner. The relief that can be granted in such situations where the merit panel itself is open to serious doubt has been outlined by the Supreme Court in M/s Bharat P etroleum Corp. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Ramesh Chand Trivedi (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.16474 of 2010 decided on 4.10.2010) wherein the Supreme Court has considered a similar situation where selection process for distributorship was held illegal and vitiated due to extraneous considerations. It has been held as under:- “....If a comparative assessment made by a selection Board is vitiated, and the appellants decided to scrap the entire panel and re-advertise the distributorship, the decision is not open to question. It cannot be contended that when the allotment in favour of the first person in the panel is set aside, the distributorship should automatically be allotted to the eligible applicant who is shown as second in the panel. It cannot be contended that when the allotment in favour of the first person in the panel is set aside, the distributorship should automatically be allotted to the eligible applicant who is shown as second in the panel. Where the allotment was cancelled on account of irregularity in selection and preparation of panel, the decision to have a fresh selection instead of using the panel which was found to be vitiated, does not call for interference by courts.” 19. In Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through POA Holder and others vs. Ashok Shankarlal G walani, MANU/SC/1114/2012, the Supreme Court held as under:- “17. Generally, if an irregularity is detected in the matter of selection or preparation of a panel it is desirable to have a fresh selection instead of re-arranging the panel which is found to be vitiated. The Authority empowered to appoint, is the competent authority to decide as to whether the panel should be discarded and there should be a fresh selection in view of the facts narrated above. In such circumstances, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought to not have interfered with the decision of the competent authority in cancelling the selection.” 20. In my view, the aforesaid two judgments delivered by the Supreme Court preeminently cover the issue involved in this case. The petitioner cannot be heard to insist that the distributorship should be awarded to him with the exit of Neelam Chander from merit position 1. Passing off the letter dated 2.7.2009 as an experience certificate to gain an edge over his rival and then to shift his stand in the present petition that it was produced only to show his place of posting is a clever device to try and wriggle out of the remand directions of this Court and thus cannot to my mind be permitted to be raised after obtaining the order dated 20.4.2010 from this Court by making it believe so, after which the petitioner can have no consideration in equity jurisdiction in the next round of litigation after the certificate relied upon was found to be false document even though as an additional ground to non suit the petitioner having invited trouble upon himself. The decision taken by the competent authority to hold fresh selection therefore calls for no interference by Courts as it does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or perversity or the like. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed in limine at the motion stage.