JUDGMENT Joymalya Bagchi. J. With the consent of parties, W. P. No.3278 (W) of 2010 is treated as on day’s list and is disposed of with W.P.No.9572 (W) of 2011 by a common judgment and order. Affidavits filed on behalf of the parties in W.P.9572 (W) of 2011 are taken on record. W.P.9572 (W) of 2011 has been preferred by one Chinmoy Bhattacharjee, an unsuccessful candidate who had applied to be appointed as a regular LPG distributor under the respondent Oil Company pursuant to an advertisement issued by the said Company on 16.9.2007. In response of such advertisement, the petitioner had applied for appointment as distributor of LPG at Barabazar, Alipurduar, District-Jalpaiguri. Respondent Nos.5A, 5B and 6 were also applicants for appointment to the self-same distributorship. It has been claimed by the petitioner that pursuant to the selection process an initial list was prepared where the petitioner was placed at serial No.2, whereas the respondent Nos.5A and 5B were illegally placed at the top. It is the further contention of the petitioner that though the respondent no.6 was not included in the initial list, the panel was unfairly recast and respondent no.6 was placed ahead of the petitioner in the recasted panel. Petitioner contended that the application of respondent nos.5A and 5B was not in terms of the advertisement and/or the conditions laid down in the brochure applicable for selection of LPG dealers. Respondent no.6 was also illegally included in the recasted panel. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5A and 5B disputed the fact that his client did not comply with the requisite parameter for selection. He submitted that his clients were placed at the top of the list in view of the fact that they had complied with all parameters and had scored the minimum marks. He further submitted that the petitioner being placed at serial No.3 did not have any locustandi to challenge their selection. It was further claimed that the objection of the petitioner with regard to the location of their show room/go down, was in fact, investigated into and rejected vide order dated 28.2.2011, being annexure P-9 to the writ petition. Mr. Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 disputed that her name was included in the panel unfairly subsequently. He submitted that his client was initially not empanelled and had challenged such decision in W.P.3278 (W) of 2010. Mr. Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 disputed that her name was included in the panel unfairly subsequently. He submitted that his client was initially not empanelled and had challenged such decision in W.P.3278 (W) of 2010. During the pendency of such petition, respondents realised their mistake and empanelled her at serial no.2 ahead of the petitioner. Hence, petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved since rejection of application of respondent nos.5A and 5B would entitle respondent no.6 and not the petitioner for selection. He, however, admitted in view of the stance of the respondent no.6 in incorporating her name in the panel nothing survived for decision in W.P.3278 (W) of 2010. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Oil Corporation submitted that the selection was conducted in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and guidelines applicable thereto. Petitioner cannot have any grievance with regard to the selection process. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The petitioner has raised grievances with regard to the placement of respondent Nos.5A and 5B at the top of the panel. According to the petitioner, they did not have satisfy with the requisite parameters for selection which, inter alia, included to the issue of location of their show room/go-down. It appears that by the impugned order dated 28.2.2011, such issue had been decided in favour of the respondent Nos.5A and 5B. However, I find that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner who had raised such grievance before the respondent authorities in this regard and the impugned order was passed behind their back. Hence, such decision dated 28.2.2011 is set aside. I am of the considered view that the disputes raised by the petitioner with regard to the location of the show room of respondent Nos.5A and 5B and other disputes touching them satisfying necessary qualification of the parameters for selection are essentially question of facts which require to be decided upon due enquiry by the respondent authorities after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all affected parties. I am also of the considered opinion that the recasting of the panel and grant of additional marks to the respondent no.6 which put her at serial no.2 in the recasted panel also require reconsideration after hearing the petitioner and the private respondents herein. I am also of the considered opinion that the recasting of the panel and grant of additional marks to the respondent no.6 which put her at serial no.2 in the recasted panel also require reconsideration after hearing the petitioner and the private respondents herein. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent no.2 or his nominee to consider the grievances of the petitioners raised in the instant writ petition and after due enquiry and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and private respondents come to a reasoned decision on the following issues: a) whether respondent Nos.5A and 5B had satisfied necessary parameters in terms of the advertisement and conditions of the brochure of respondent Oil Company applicable thereto for selection; b) whether grant of additional marks to respondent no.6 and placing her at serial no.2 in the recasted panel ahead of the petitioners was justified. Such decision shall be taken within 12 weeks from date of communication of this order. Decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioners and respondent Nos.5A, 5B and 6 within two weeks thereafter. Till the decision is communicated, status quo shall be maintained in the matter of appointment of distributorship to the site in question by the respondent Oil Company. I make it clear that the respondent no.2 and/or his nominee shall treat the copy of the writ petition being W.P.9572 (W) of 2011 as the representation of the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of.