JUDGMENT : K.M. JOSEPH, J. 1. Appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. 2. Pursuant to a joint advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, the first appellant and the Hindustan Petroleum dated 23.11.2013 inviting applications for LPG distributorship, the writ petitioner had applied vide Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he along with 25 other candidates was selected for participation and they were called for the lottery draw. They appeared and, thereafter, the writ petitioner was selected. He was asked to deposit a demand draft of Rs. 20,000/-, which he deposited, as is evident from Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. Thereafter, he received Annexure No. 6 dated 11.08.2014, wherein it is found that funds shown were in the current account and, therefore, his candidature was rejected and amount of Rs. 20,000/-was forfeited. It is in such circumstances that the writ petitioner filed the writ petition, wherein he has challenged the said order and had sought other prayers also. Prayer no. 2 and 3 of the writ petition are as follows: “(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to issue to letter of intent to the petitioner to run the R.G.G.L.V. Distributorship of Village Sultanpur Adampur mentioned in the advertisement dated 23-11-2013 at serial no. 31 of the advertisement. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents that they may not hold again the draw of lottery in regard to the R.G.G.L.V. Distributorship of Village Sultanpur Adampur mentioned in advertisement dated 23-11-2013 at serial no.31 of the advertisement.” 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge appears to be as follows: The contention of the writ petitioner was noted that at the relevant time, he had more than Rs. 12,00,000/-in his Current Account, which has never been less than the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/-as was the mandatory condition for the distributor. It is further noted that moreover this condition has no relevance to the credibility or financial solvency of the writ petitioner. In any case, this condition was only directory in nature and could have easily been rectified since the writ petitioner had met all the major requirements. It is further noted that moreover this condition has no relevance to the credibility or financial solvency of the writ petitioner. In any case, this condition was only directory in nature and could have easily been rectified since the writ petitioner had met all the major requirements. The impugned order was set aside and the candidature of the writ petitioner was directed to be examined afresh. Then, three weeks’ time was given to furnish the financial details, as required. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants are before us. 4. We heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Prabhat Bohra, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that this is a common selection undertaken by the three petroleum companies. Applications are considered and the matter is processed and if in the Field Verification it is found that the matter is not as provided in the application then Clause 22 is pressed, which reads as follows: “22. FURNISHING OF FALSE INFORMATION If any statement made in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application by the candidate at any stage is found to be suppressed/misrepresented/incorrect or false affecting eligibility, the application/candidature is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason. In case, the selection of the candidate is rejected after the FVC or after issuance of LOI but before issue of Letter of Appointment, then the 10% of security deposit i.e. Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) deposited by the selected candidate before FVC will be forfeited. In case the selected candidate has been appointed as a RGGLV and the allotment is liable to be cancelled, then the RGGLV will be terminated along with forfeiture of security deposit remitted by the candidate. In such cases, the selected candidate/RGGLV will have no claim whatsoever against the respective Oil Company.” 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in this case admittedly, the writ petitioner did not have Rs.4,00,000/-as provided in the relevant Clause. Instead, he may have had the amount in the Current Account but that would not suffice in the terms of the requirement and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not correct in interfering in the matter. 7. Mr. Instead, he may have had the amount in the Current Account but that would not suffice in the terms of the requirement and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not correct in interfering in the matter. 7. Mr. Prabhat Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner would submit that no notice was given to him within the meaning of Clause 10.3. Clause 10.3 reads as follows: “10.3 If in the FVC, it is found that information given in the application is at variance with the original documents and that information affects the eligibility of the candidate, then a letter would be sent by Registered Post AD/Sped Post pointing out the discrepancy. Candidature of selected candidate in such a case will be cancelled and 10% of security deposit i.e. Rs. 20000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand) deposited by the selected candidate before FVC will be forfeited if false/incorrect/misrepresented information has been given in the application.” 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner that had he been given an opportunity, he could have rectified the matter. He also has a case that as provided in the relevant clause, which is the subject matter of the present controversy, namely, Clause 6(g), there was more than Rs. 4,00,000/-even in the savings bank, taking the amount available in the credit of the Members of the Family. We may, in fact, notice in this regard the allegations made in ground ‘M’ of the writ petition, which reads as follows: “M. Because an amount Rs. 14,80,275/-was lying in current account of the petitioner on the date of submission of application form. Apart from the aforesaid amount in current account the petitioner is having Rs.01,08,924/-in the name of his wife Smt. Rihana Parveen in saving account No.4181021547 in Uttaranchal Grameen Bank Sultanpur, and the petitioner is having the saving accounts No.313700090723 PNB Sultanpur, Oriental Bank of Commerce account No. 0362201002770, Uttaranchal Grameen Bank account No.4181030630, Life Insurance Corporation account No.2707597673, F.D.R. Uttaranchal Grameen account no.76001301388, F.D.R. Uttaranchal Grameen account no.03623031021898, (R.D) in Post Office account no. 1646083, R.P.L.I. Post Office (Policy) Policy No. R-UA-EA-202717, 6.N.S. No.45DD-347703, 6.N.S. No. 45DD-347704 in different Banks, and total amount of Rs. 4,31,420/-on the date of submission of application was available in the name of the petitioner and his wife Smt. Rihana Parveen. 9. It is answered in the following way: “12. That the contents of para no. 1646083, R.P.L.I. Post Office (Policy) Policy No. R-UA-EA-202717, 6.N.S. No.45DD-347703, 6.N.S. No. 45DD-347704 in different Banks, and total amount of Rs. 4,31,420/-on the date of submission of application was available in the name of the petitioner and his wife Smt. Rihana Parveen. 9. It is answered in the following way: “12. That the contents of para no. 14 of the writ petition are not admitted in as much as the detailed reply has been made in the preceding paragraph, however it is stated that as per guidelines the funds in the accounts mentioned in the application form only need to be considered. The funds available in the other accounts cannot be considered.” Regarding the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that it will be a substitution of the terms of the advertisement. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that actually the amount in the Current Account represents a cash credit limit and cannot be equated with the Savings Bank deposit. 11. Both the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner relied on case law. On one hand, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the Division Bench judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition C No. – 64849 of 2014. Therein, the petitioner instead of providing Savings Bank account details supplied bank details of his Current Account. The application form was rejected. The Court inter alia held as follows: “Admittedly the terms and conditions of the advertisement for allotment of L.P.G. Vitrak Dealership at Dodamafi, Kihuniya, Itwa, Dulaila, district Chitrakoot mentioned in the advertisement shows that the applicant is to provide his Saving Bank account details. Mentioning of bank details other than Saving Bank details cannot be said to be complete in all respect. Petitioner was ineligible as he has not given the desired information in the application form, as required in the advertisement and in the present scenario the time is the essence of business. There are large number of applicants and if the petitioner is permitted to keep on making the correction in the form then there will be no end to it. There are large number of applicants and if the petitioner is permitted to keep on making the correction in the form then there will be no end to it. There may be other persons, who may have done such mistakes, like the petitioner and if the petitioner is allowed to correct his bank details then they may also approach this Court for making rectification/correction and in that event Corporation will not be able to award the contract to anybody.” 12. There is another Division Bench judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition (Misc. Bench No.) No. – 12179 of 2014 which also dealt with the same issue. Therein, also the petitioner was successful in the draw of lottery and he was declared successful. On Field Verification, it was found that the amount disclosed by the petitioner was Rs. 3,73,810/-. There also, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amount disclosed in the Current Account has been illegally excluded. The Court proceeded to hold as follows: “The details of the account, which was acceptable while calculating the required minimum balance of Rs. 4 Lacs, are exhaustive. Such account, which has not been specified, stands excluded and there was hardly any necessity to mention the details of such account, which was not acceptable while calculating the required minimum balance. There is no ambiguity in this regard either in the advertisement or in the terms and conditions of the brochure. In view of above facts and discussions, we do not find any illegality in the decision of the respondent Corporation not to include the amount disclosed by the petitioner in his current account while calculating the required minimum balance and rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he does not fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria.” 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner relied on Single Bench judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 5880 of 2014. Therein, the issue related to selection for L.P.G. Distributorship. The petitioner therein was found eligible and was selected in the draw but later on his candidature was rejected on the ground that as per the requirements stipulated in the Brochure, the amount must be in a scheduled Bank whereas the amount in the account of the petitioner was in the Bank, which was not a scheduled Bank. The petitioner therein was found eligible and was selected in the draw but later on his candidature was rejected on the ground that as per the requirements stipulated in the Brochure, the amount must be in a scheduled Bank whereas the amount in the account of the petitioner was in the Bank, which was not a scheduled Bank. The learned Single Judge took the view that petitioner has not suppressed any information and misrepresented any facts. The applicant was found to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe category. 14. In this case, it is first of all necessary to look at the application form, which is produced along with the writ petition as Annexure No. 2. In the same, in column no. 10, it provides the heading as ‘Amount in Savings Bank Account in Bank/Post Office in the name of applicant and members of Family Unit’. In this context, we must notice the relevant clause i.e. Clause no. 6(g), which reads as follows: “6(g). Have minimum total amount of Rs. 4 lakhs as the closing balance on the last date for submission of application, as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). This amount can be put together from Savings accounts in Bank/Post Office, free and un-encumbered Fixed Deposits in Scheduled Banks, Post Office, Listed Companies/Government Organisation/Public Sector Undertaking of State and Central Government, Kisan Vikas Patra, NSC, Bonds, Shares of Listed Companies, Listed Mutual Funds, ULIP, PPF, Surrender value of Life Insurance Policies in the name of self or family members of the “Family unit” as defined in Multiple dealership/distributorship norm who pledge in writing such assets in favour of applicant. In case of locations reserved under ‘SC/ST’ category, applicant should have minimum of Rs. 2 lakhs as the closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any), put together from Savings accounts in Bank/Post Office, free and unencumbered Fixed Deposits in Scheduled Banks, Post Office, Listed Companies/Government Organisation/Public Sector Undertaking of State and Central Government, Kisan Vikas Patra, NSC, Bonds, Shares of Listed Companies, Listed Mutual Funds, ULIP, PPF, Surrender value of Life Insurance Policies in the name of self or family members of the “Family unit” as defined in Multiple dealership/distributorship norm who pledge in writing such assets in favour of applicant.” 15. It is very clear that the writ petitioner had claimed the amount of Rs. It is very clear that the writ petitioner had claimed the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- as the amount in the Savings Bank account. Quite clearly, he did not have Rs. 12,00,000/- in the Savings Bank account. This is clear from his own averment in ground ‘M’ of the writ petition, which we have extracted. We have already seen the answer of the appellants to the same. 16. It is a clear case where the writ petitioner has misrepresented the fact insofar as the writ petitioner had claimed that he is having Rs. 12,00,000/- in the Savings Bank account when he did not have that amount in the Savings Bank account. The procedure of selection is one based on lottery. The applications are processed on the basis of the contents of the application being correct and not containing any misrepresentation. This is essentially a matter relating to distribution of largesse. The applicant is a Public Sector Unit. It is obliged to act fairly. It has inserted the relevant clause with reference to which it intends to deal with anyone in the advertisement. They bind both the appellant and also anyone who applies pursuant to the advertisement. In the relevant clause 6(g), the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- is stipulated. How the amount is to be held is also expressly stipulated. Savings Bank deposit is one of the modes, in which the applicant can prove his financial capacity. Most pertinently this is a matter, which is to be governed with reference to the last date for submitting the application. 17. We are in agreement with the two Division Bench judgments of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. When the employer has set out the terms to render an applicant eligible, the applicant has to satisfy the said requirements. The applicant did not have Rs. 4,00,000/- in the manner provided in Clause 6(g) as on the last date of the submission of the application. The application form call for details of the persons coming as Family Members in the manner provided in the relevant clause. The application form produced in the writ petition itself shows that the claim, which is set up in ground ‘M’ is not reflected in the application. Therefore, the appellants cannot be blamed if they did not take into consideration the claim that writ petitioner along with his wife was having amounts in Savings Bank account in excess of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The application form produced in the writ petition itself shows that the claim, which is set up in ground ‘M’ is not reflected in the application. Therefore, the appellants cannot be blamed if they did not take into consideration the claim that writ petitioner along with his wife was having amounts in Savings Bank account in excess of Rs. 4,00,000/-. 18. We also need not be persuaded by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. That was a case, at any rate, where the writ petitioner had not made any suppression or misrepresentation. In his application form he had specifically claimed that he was holding requisite amount not in a Scheduled Bank but in another Bank. He did not claim the amount to be in a Scheduled Bank. Here, on the other hand, the writ petitioner had claimed the amount as an amount lying in Savings Bank deposit apparently to make his application in consonance with the requirements of the advertisement. Therefore, if the applicant was later on found guilty of having suppressed or misrepresented or at any rate if the statement in the application is found to be incorrect, that warranted rejection of his selection. 19. We do agree with the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner was not given any notice before the selection was cancelled. Ordinarily, if the selection is cancelled, we would have thought that principles of natural justice which are un-embodied Rules of equity would require that an opportunity should have been given to the writ petitioner but in the setting of the facts of this case, we would think that it may not be necessary as the facts are not in dispute. The writ petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of the advertisement. Even if the contention of the writ petitioner that in terms of Clause 10.3 if an opportunity had been given, he could have rectified the matter, we find that argument misconceived. This is for the reason that the requirement is that applicant must possess Rs. 4,00,000/-as on the last date of application in the form prescribed therein. The writ petitioner could not have rectified the matter even if an opportunity was given with reference to the last date of the application as he did not possess Rs. 4,00,000/-in the Savings Bank deposit. He had it only in the Current Bank account. 4,00,000/-as on the last date of application in the form prescribed therein. The writ petitioner could not have rectified the matter even if an opportunity was given with reference to the last date of the application as he did not possess Rs. 4,00,000/-in the Savings Bank deposit. He had it only in the Current Bank account. That could not have been rectified retrospectively. 20. Coming also to the argument of Mr. Prabhat Bohra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that he would have pointed out that he along with his wife had more than Rs. 4,00,000/-, as provided in Clause 6(g), we would think that when the applicant has not made such a claim in the application at the relevant time, it is not open to him to later on point out that he has the requisite eligibility. This is particularly when we bear in mind the argument of the writ petitioner that applications are invited by three companies by a common selection procedure and apparently number of applications are received and the applications are processed out on the basis of the lottery system and therefore, apparently faith is reposed in the applicant by the companies. Even proceeding on the basis that the applicant’s representation relating to the column no. 10 regarding the Savings Bank account was a mistake, it remains a mistake which rendered the person ineligible. To merely describe the condition as directory and to have allowed the writ petition, we would think ought not to have been done by the learned Single Judge. There is no challenge as such to the advertisement and the terms of the conditions. The condition clearly require holding of the amount in a particular mode and not in the Current Account. Therefore, the Current Account could not be taken into consideration. Therefore, we see in these facts that no case was made out by the writ petitioner. 21. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would also submit that the writ petitioner has annexed the document. The document is apparently opposed to the statement contained in the column. We may notice that it would mean that the statement contained in the application is contrary to the document produced and the appellants have correctly invoked Clause 10.3. 22. Accordingly, the Special Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge stands set aside. Writ petition will stand dismissed. We may notice that it would mean that the statement contained in the application is contrary to the document produced and the appellants have correctly invoked Clause 10.3. 22. Accordingly, the Special Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge stands set aside. Writ petition will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.