JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The writ petition pertains to award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) for the location Panigaon in Telahi Block in the district of Lakhimpur under physically handicapped category. The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his candidature. Be it stated here that the selection is made by draw of lots and the respondent No. 4 has already been selected and he has been issued with the Letter of Intent (LOI). Coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner along with other physically challenged candidates offered their candidatures for RGGLV dealership for the location at village-Panigaon under Telahi Block in the district of Lakhimpur. The case projected in the writ petition is that the petitioner in his application gave details of his permanent residence which is village-Dhenudharia, Panigaon Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner as per the requirement of the advertisement also submitted documents relating to land. When he was informed vide Annexure-3 letter dated 31/08/2012 that he was not found eligible on 2 (two) counts, namely (i) he is not a resident of the advertised location and (ii) the land shown for the dealership is not in his name, the petitioner, as per the liberty granted, submitted representation dated 17/09/2012 enclosing therewith the supporting documents. However, the petitioner was informed vide Annexure-5 communication that his candidature could not be accepted for RGGLV on the aforesaid 2 (two) grounds. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 06/12/2012 clarifying his position in the matter. However, he could come to know that before the rejection of his candidature conveyed vide Annexure-5 letter dated 15/11/2012, the selection/draw of lot was already conveyed on 10-11-2012 to two candidates, namely, one Shri Pradeep Kalita and another Shri Gokul Dutta (Respondent No. 4) furnishing the information that they had qualified for the draw for selection of RGGLV and they should appear for the draw at 10.00 a.m. on 30/11/2012. 2. According to the petitioner, his candidature has been rejected on non-tenable grounds and that his candidature has been rejected with a pre-determined mind. It is the plea of the petitioner that he having fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility, his candidature could not have been rejected. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner had given details of his land as situated at Dhenudharia Village of Lakhimpur District. It is the plea of the petitioner that he having fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility, his candidature could not have been rejected. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner had given details of his land as situated at Dhenudharia Village of Lakhimpur District. While as per the requirement of the advertisement, a candidate is required to be a resident of Panigaon village. According to the respondents, as per the requirement of the advertisement, the candidate is required to be a resident of Panigaon but in the application submitted by the petitioner, he clearly indicated his residence as village-Dhenudharia. They have contended that Panigaon and Dhenudharia are two different villages under Panigaon Gaon Panchayat. They have also supported the other ground of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner which is, non-holding of any land in his name at Panigaon village. 4. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, while reiterating and reaffirming the statements made in the writ petition, the petitioner has also contended that his case ought to have been considered at par with said Shri Pradeep Kalita, who is also a resident of village-Khoga and not Panigaon. As regards the plea of not having land at Panigaon village, the petitioner has referred to the definition of Family Unit under Clause (c) of the notice for appointment. As per the said definition "Family Unit in case of unmarried persons shall consists of individual concerned; his/her parents and his/her un-married brother(s) and un-married sister(s)". According to the petitioner, there being land at village Panigaon in the name of his mother Smt. Kusum Bharali, he cannot be said to be ineligible. 5. I have heard Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel and Standing Counsel, IOCL assisted by Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel. I have also heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. I have also considered the entire materials including the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel, IOCL. My findings and conclusions are as follows. 6. There is no dispute that the advertisement was for village Panigaon under Block Telahi in the district of Lakhimpur. There is also no dispute that the petitioner is not a resident of Panigaon but is a resident of Dhenudharia. My findings and conclusions are as follows. 6. There is no dispute that the advertisement was for village Panigaon under Block Telahi in the district of Lakhimpur. There is also no dispute that the petitioner is not a resident of Panigaon but is a resident of Dhenudharia. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the village Dhenudharia falls within the jurisdiction of Panigaon Gaon Panchayat, he should be construed to be a resident of village Panigaon. To buttress this argument, he also submitted that since Shri Pradeep Kalita belonging to village Khoga was invited for the draw accepting his candidature, the petitioner should also have been invited for the draw at par with the said candidate. As regards the other ground of rejection of candidature, referring to the aforesaid definition of "Family Unit", he submitted that since the mother has land at village Panigaon, his candidature could not have been rejected on that ground. 7. Countering the aforesaid submission, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel, IOCL submitted that even if the candidature of Pradeep Kalita was wrongly accepted, the same cannot clothe the petitioner with any right to perpetuate the same wrong. Referring to the stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit, he also submitted that irrespective of accepting the candidature of said Shri Kalita and even if he had been selected, there would have been further field verification and in the event of non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria, irrespective of issuance of LOI, he would not have been offered letter of appointment. 8. Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the respondent NO. 4 referring to the averments made in the application registered as MC 2459/2013, submitted that since he has been selected for the dealership, he has made the construction of the godown and show room as per the approved drawing of the Joint Chief Controller of Explosive, East Circle, Kolkata. According to him, constructions are over and he has also obtained final Explosive Licence from the authority. Further statement made in the application is that he has also obtained Tax Registration and Trade Licence. Thus, he has contended that since he has completed the infrastructure for running the dealership, he should be allowed to run the dealership by vacating the interim order dated 08/094/2013, by which commissioning of the dealership was restrained. 9. In the application that was submitted by the petitioner, under Col. Thus, he has contended that since he has completed the infrastructure for running the dealership, he should be allowed to run the dealership by vacating the interim order dated 08/094/2013, by which commissioning of the dealership was restrained. 9. In the application that was submitted by the petitioner, under Col. 7.3 requiring furnishing of address, the petitioner indicated his village at Dhenudharia under PO & PS-Panigaon in the district of Lakhimpur. As regards the requirement of having land, the petitioner stated in his application that the land stands in the name of his mother at village Dhenudharia, Panigaon. The said statement was supported by an affidavit of his mother stating that in the event the petitioner being selected, she would have no objection for construction of godown/show room on the land specified in Col. 9 of the application. As noted above, in Col. 9, while indicating "address of the location of the land for LPG godown" it was stated that the same is at "Dhenudharia, Panigaon". Thus, it is not the case of the petitioner that he belongs to village Panigaon or that the land specified in the application and standing in his mother's name is also at village Panigaon. 10. When the petitioner was informed of aforesaid two grounds of rejection of his candidature vide Annexure-3 communication dated 31/08/2012 requiring him to submit representation clarifying the position, the petitioner by his Annexure-4 representation dated 17/09/2012 stated only the following without indicating as to how he is a resident of village Panigaon and also whether his mother has any land at village Panigaon. 1. Residential advertised location proof and map of Panigaon G.P. from Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle, Lakhimpur. 2. Land Holding certificate from the Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle for the said Godown. 3. Certificate from the Concurred authorities duly constituted by the Central/State Govt. as per the Gazette of India. 4. That all the Signatories of the Certificate of disabilities are specialist doctor as put by the Joint Director of District Health Service, Lakhimpur. 11. Along with the said representation, the petitioner also submitted residential Certificate, copy of Panigaon G.P., land holding certificate and Disability certificates and a Rehabilitation Council of India registration certificate. as per the Gazette of India. 4. That all the Signatories of the Certificate of disabilities are specialist doctor as put by the Joint Director of District Health Service, Lakhimpur. 11. Along with the said representation, the petitioner also submitted residential Certificate, copy of Panigaon G.P., land holding certificate and Disability certificates and a Rehabilitation Council of India registration certificate. On perusal of the residential certificate issued by the authority, it is found that by the said certificate he has been certified to be a resident of village Dhenudharia under Panigaon G.P. The trace map of Panigaon village was enclosed to show that the village Dhenudharia is within the said G.P. In the land holding certificate also the land was shown to be at village Dhenudharia standing in the name of the petitioner and not in the name of his mother Smt. Kusum Bharali. The petitioner's address is shown as village Dhenudharia, P.O. Panigaon. 12. From the above, there is no dispute that the petitioner did not fulfill both the conditions of advertised location. While it is true that the land need not be in the name of the applicant but as per the own showing of the petitioner the land belonging to his mother is also located at village Dhenudharia. Had it been a land at village Panigaon, he would have been covered by the definition of 'family unit' as the land shown by him stands in the name of one of the members of the family unit, namely his mother Smt. Kusum Bharali. This being the position, I find no illegality in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 13. This now leads us to the most emphasized plea that one Shri Pradeep Kalita was allowed to participate in the selection upon acceptance of his candidature although he also does not belong to village Panigaon but belongs to village Khoga. On perusal of the materials on record including the application submitted by said Shri Kalita, it is found that he indicated his village as Khoga under Clause 7.3 under which the petitioner had indicated his village at Dhenudharia. However, in clause 7.4, Shri Kalita indicated his village as Khoga, Panigaon. The petitioner has contended that since said Kalita was held eligible although belongs to village Khoga, the petitioner should have also been held to be eligible applying the same parameters and yardsticks. 14. However, in clause 7.4, Shri Kalita indicated his village as Khoga, Panigaon. The petitioner has contended that since said Kalita was held eligible although belongs to village Khoga, the petitioner should have also been held to be eligible applying the same parameters and yardsticks. 14. As noted above, the stand of the respondents and as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, IOCL, even after selection by draw of lot, there is further process of field verification etc. and if upon such verification it is found that particulars furnished in the application do not tally with the requirement of the advertisement then the candidature is liable to be rejected irrespective of selection by draw of lot. 15. Above apart, merely because an in-eligible candidate was called for who is also not a party respondent to this proceeding, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot issue any direction to the respondents to perpetuate the same illegality by calling the petitioner to the selection. The petitioner will have to establish his own case on its own merit and not on the basis of any illegality committed by the respondents in inviting another candidate. As has been held by the Apex Court in (State of Bihar and another Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another) reported in (2000) 9 SCC 94 , 'equity' being a positive concept, cannot be enforced in a negative manner. 16. To quell any doubt I have also verified the application that was submitted by the respondent No. 4 along with the supporting documents and on perusal of the same it is found that he fulfilled all the required conditions including the requirement of being a resident of village Panigaon with land therein. He has been selected as per the conditions stipulated in the advertisement by draw of lot. Pursuant to the LOI issued to him he has also made ready infrastructures including explosive licence and other related certificates. Above being the position, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed, without however, any order as to costs. Interim order dated 08/04/2013 operating in this proceeding stands vacated. Petition dismissed