ORDER 1. Heard finally with consent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for substitution of her name in place of her late husband for allotment of petrol pump dealership at Kareli, District Narsinghpur. 3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that her husband had filed an application for allotment of petrol pump dealership against the freedom fighter quota but after filing the application her husband had expired, therefore, the petitioner filed an application for substitution of her name in place of her husband but the said prayer was not allowed, therefore, the present writ petition was filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, pressing the writ petition vehemently, contended that after the death of her husband the petitioner has right to be substituted in place of her husband. He has further submitted that the petitioner’s prayer for substitution should have been considered by the respondents. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the advertisement was for freedom fighter category quota and since the petitioner is not a freedom fighter, therefore, she is not entitled for consideration against the said quota. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the retail outlet at Kareli for which the advertisement was issued was reserved for the freedom fighters. It is also not in dispute before this Court that petitioner is not a freedom fighter. The respondents in their reply have raised the specific plea that after filing an application by the husband of the applicant and after his subsequent death there is no provision under the rules to substitute the name of another applicant. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any rule permitting the substitution of petitioner in place of her late husband. The reply of the respondents also reveals that in pursuance to the advertisement the interview had taken place on 27.9.2005 but no person has qualified as no candidate could get the minimum qualifying marks. The relevant para of the advertisement has also been pointed out which requires production of a copy of the certificate issued by the concerned authority under freedom fighter pension scheme as a proof of the applicant being a freedom fighter. Undisputedly, the petitioner is not in a position to produce such a certificate. The relevant para of the advertisement has also been pointed out which requires production of a copy of the certificate issued by the concerned authority under freedom fighter pension scheme as a proof of the applicant being a freedom fighter. Undisputedly, the petitioner is not in a position to produce such a certificate. No provision has been pointed out to show that the wife or other family members of freedom fighters are entitled for the said benefit which has been claimed. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of any merit, which is accordingly dismissed.