Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr.K.Muraleedharan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.K.Alagirisamy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.09.2012, made in W.P.(MD).No.11111 of 2011. 3. The Writ Petitioner in the Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD).No.11111 of 2011, is the appellant in the present Writ Appeal. The appellant herein had filed the said Writ Petition, before this Court, praying for a Writ of Declaration, to declare the selection of the fourth respondent herein, ranked as Candidate No.1, for the Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealership/ Distributorship, for Kadamalaigundu to Kandamanur (SH 101), Andipatti Taluk, Theni District, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to declare the appellant as the selected candidate for the allocation of Dealership/Distributorship. 4. The learned Single Judge had passed the order, dated 20.09.2012, in W.P.(MD).No.11111 of 2011, dismissing the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge had rejected the claim of the appellant that he should have been selected for the Dealership/Distributorship on the basis that the location of his land is in a better place as compared to that of the fourth respondent and that he is younger in age and therefore, he is more suitable for the allocation of Dealership/Distributorship. 5. It had also been held that this Court does not sit in appeal, nor it is for this Court to reassess the grading or the merit of the respective candidates. It had been further held that, from the way the marks had been allocated to the candidates, no mistake could be found on the face of the record to hold that the awarding of the marks was arbitrary or illegal. 6. The learned Single Judge had also noted that the fourth respondent had secured 62.56 marks, which is clearly higher than that of the appellant herein, who had secured 55.82 marks. The details of the marks granted to the candidates, under the various headings, had also been taken note of by the learned Single Judge, while arriving at his conclusion. 7. The learned Single Judge had also noted that the fourth respondent had secured 62.56 marks, which is clearly higher than that of the appellant herein, who had secured 55.82 marks. The details of the marks granted to the candidates, under the various headings, had also been taken note of by the learned Single Judge, while arriving at his conclusion. 7. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge had not taken into account the impropriety relating to the awarding of the marks, under the head 'Experience' of the candidates, while passing the order in W.P. (MD).No.11111 of 2011, dated 20.09.2012. The additional documents filed by the appellant, at the stage of the final hearing of the Writ Petition had not been taken into account, while passing the order, dated 20.09.2012. The learned Single Judge had not properly appreciated the fact that the fourth respondent had obtained the marks by misrepresentation and by producing false documents. The learned Single Judge ought to have noted that Clause 19.2 of the brochure of the first respondent Corporation states that, on receipt of information, at any point of time, if the candidates concerned had misrepresented and misled the Selection Committee, by false statements and bogus documents, the selection of such candidate could be terminated, even after it had been commissioned. 8. It had been noted that the fourth respondent had submitted a Sale Deed, dated 08.11.2010, to show his financial capacity. However, the value of the said land and building thereon had been wrongly shown as Rs.8.5 lakhs, while the market value of the land had been shown as Rs.16,593/-, in the Sale Deed, for the purpose of the payment of the stamp duty. Further, the learned Single Judge ought to have noted that the mother of the fourth respondent is a government employee working in the Postal Department and her monthly income is Rs.65,208/-. She had furnished her Income Certificate showing her income as Rs.1,98,000/- stating that it was the income obtained by her from a hotel. However, no income tax returns, nor the assessment made by the authorities concerned had been produced to support her claims. In such circumstances, the marks awarded to the fourth respondent, by the Selection Committee of the first respondent Corporation, cannot be sustained. 9. However, no income tax returns, nor the assessment made by the authorities concerned had been produced to support her claims. In such circumstances, the marks awarded to the fourth respondent, by the Selection Committee of the first respondent Corporation, cannot be sustained. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 had submitted that the terms and conditions prescribed for the process of selection are binding on the candidates and the objections regarding the selection procedure ought to be raised, within 30 days from the date of the declaration of the result of the interview. The selection process is fair and proper and there is no discrimination between the fourth respondent and the appellant, for the grant of Dealership/Distributorship. Further, necessary verifications had been made with regard to the claims of the fourth respondent, relating to his qualifications, experience and financial capability and they had been found to be proper and acceptable. As such, no infirmity could be found with regard to the selection process. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent had submitted that the fourth respondent had produced the relevant records for assessing his qualifications, experience and financial capability, for the awarding of the marks. Equal marks had been awarded to the appellant, as well as the fourth respondent, with regard to the income criterion under the 'Income Head'. As such, the present Writ Petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the submissions of the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 20.09.2012, made in W.P.(MD).No.11111 of 2011. The allegations made by the appellant, with regard to the income of the fourth respondent, had not been established by the appellant, with sufficient evidence. It is also a well settled position in law that this Court would not conduct a roving enquiry with regard to the details of the selection process. No error or illegality could be found with regard to the awarding of marks for the appellant, as well as the respondents. It is also a well settled position in law that this Court would not conduct a roving enquiry with regard to the details of the selection process. No error or illegality could be found with regard to the awarding of marks for the appellant, as well as the respondents. It is also noted that a Letter of Appointment, dated 28.03.2014, had been issued to the fourth respondent, by the first respondent Corporation and the Dealership/Distributorship granted to the fourth respondent had been commissioned. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the present Writ Appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.