JUDGMENT : M.G. Sewlikar, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 dated 30-12-2019. 3. Facts leading to this petition can be succinctly stated as under: Respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited published an advertisement on 25-11-2018 in the newspaper and thereby invited applications from the persons, who are interested in opening a new retail outlet/dealership of petrol pump at Dahegaon on left hand side on Aurangabad-Pune road between K.M.206 to 204. Since the petitioner, was interested, he filed online application on 17-12-2018 along with all the requisite documents. While petitioner is required to refer to marital status in appendix-XA under paragraph 14, petitioner had mentioned in the column of marital status as "single" which indicated that the petitioner was unmarried. On 12-09-2019, petitioner received an e-mail from Indian Oil Corporation calling upon the petitioner to submit the following details/documents: 1) In appendix XA marital status in para 14 is not clear whether candidate is married or unmarried. Para 6 and 17 are also not clear as these paras are not strike of. 2) Details of Higher Secondary pass examination given in the application but copy of mark-sheet/certificate is not enclosed in the application but school leaving certificate is enclosed. On 09-10-2019, petitioner received another communication calling upon again to furnish aforesaid information as was sought under letter dated 12-09-2019. The petitioner is stated to have personally visited the Office of the Indian Oil Corporation and brought to the notice of the authorities that he had already complied with the requirements/objections and his application can be processed further. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, he received a communication/order dated 30-12-2019 issued by the Head of Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation, Aurangabad, to the effect that the application of the petitioner for award of the RO Dealership at Dahegaon under open category, was found ineligible as the petitioner did not furnish the requisite documents. 4. The petitioner contends that after receipt of the said communication, he immediately forwarded the communication dated 09-01-2020, pointing out to the respondent authorities that the documents sought by the Indian Oil Corporation were already annexed to original application and that there was no deficiency. 4. The petitioner contends that after receipt of the said communication, he immediately forwarded the communication dated 09-01-2020, pointing out to the respondent authorities that the documents sought by the Indian Oil Corporation were already annexed to original application and that there was no deficiency. The petitioner did not receive any communication from the respondents thereafter. While petitioner learnt that the respondents have started further process in the matter and therefore, the petitioner is left with no alternative than to file present petition. 5. Heard Shri S.S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Shri Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the documents asked for were already annexed with the online application. He further submitted that eligibility for making application is 10th Standard pass. He had also annexed HSC certificate. According to him, there was no occasion for the respondents to raise this objection. The eligibility was 10th Standard pass and the petitioner had tendered necessary documents in that regard and necessary requirements were complied with. Since the demands under communication were not sustainable, he had explained that said documents were of little relevance as far as requirements were concerned. He further submitted that so far as marital status is concerned, the petitioner has mentioned "single" which indicates that he was unmarried at the time of making the application. He further submitted that the petitioner had been to the Office of the respondents and brought to the notice of the Officers of the respondents that the petitioner had given satisfactory explanation in respect of deficiencies stated. He further submitted that there are specific averments to that effect in the petition which have not been denied. It has further submitted that affidavit in reply is silent as regards objection as to striking of paras 6 and 17. This amounts to waiver of the objection. His application was legally valid and could not have been rejected on flimsy grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on following cases: a) Judgment dated 23-02-2016 : (Reported in AIR 2016 SC 1207 ) of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1676 of 2016 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 37555 of 2012) in the case of Hina v. Union of India and Ors. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on following cases: a) Judgment dated 23-02-2016 : (Reported in AIR 2016 SC 1207 ) of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1676 of 2016 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 37555 of 2012) in the case of Hina v. Union of India and Ors. b) Judgment dated 17-04-2018 of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2865 of 2018 in the case of Sow. Sunanda w/o Sadashiv Bhatagalikar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another. c) Judgment dated 11-09-2019 : (Reported in AIROnline 2019 Bom 1656) of Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 6711 of 2019 in the case of Vimal w/o Vijay Gatole v. The Union of India and others. 7. Shri Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that during the scrutiny it was revealed that the petitioner had mentioned his qualifications, inter alia, HSC, but had not annexed the mark-sheet or HSC certificate and that the petitioner was given opportunity twice but he did not furnish documents i.e. HSC certificate. He submitted that the petitioner was given opportunity twice to remove deficiency but the petitioner did not pay any heed and thus, application was rejected. He is now crying hoarse contending that the objection was not legally sustainable., He submitted that the petitioner is raising the objection to cover up deficiency. He fairly conceded to that the petitioner has stated his marital status as "single", which indicates that the petitioner was unmarried, albeit he ought to have been more specific. He submitted that since the requirement of HSC Certificate/Mark-sheet is not fulfilled despite giving sufficient opportunity, the application of the petitioner was rejected. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application. 8. It is apposite to note that the petitioner has contended in the petition that he had been to the Office of the respondents and pointed out to the authority that in his original application, he has mentioned marital status as single and that the requisite mark-sheet and passing certificate were annexed. These allegations have not been specifically denied by the respondents. We, therefore, find much force in the submissions of the learned counsel that the petitioner had been to the Office of the respondents and after pointing out that the objections raised were not proper, the Officers did not insist on compliance. 9. These allegations have not been specifically denied by the respondents. We, therefore, find much force in the submissions of the learned counsel that the petitioner had been to the Office of the respondents and after pointing out that the objections raised were not proper, the Officers did not insist on compliance. 9. Therefore, on this count, there was no occasion to reject the application of the petitioner. 10. As regards the objection of striking of paras 6 and 17 is concerned, affidavit in reply is silent about it. It goes to show that the respondent Corporation does not insist on the compliance of it. 11. On the above backdrop, rejection of petitioner's application for award of RO Dealership has been rendered unsustainable. 12. It will also be apposite to have a look at the eligibility criteria for making application for RO dealership. Shri Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly produced brochure of 'Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retain Outlets dated 24-11-2018'. Rule 4 specifies eligibility criteria for individual applicants - proprietorship/partnership. It reads as under: "4. Eligibility Criteria for Individual Applicants - Proprietorship/Partnership Common Eligibility Criteria for all categories applying as individual (as on date of application unless mentioned otherwise) (i) Citizenship: Indian Citizen. (ii) Residential status: Resident of India (as pep Income Tax rules 1) (iii) Age: Not less than 21 years and not more than 60 years except for Freedom Fighter under CC2 category. Proof of age should be supported by copy of 10 Standard Board Certificate/Secondary School Leaving Certificate/Birth Certificate/Passport/Affidavit for age/Identity card issued by Election Commission. (iv) Educational qualification: Passed Minimum 10 (examination conducted by a Board/School) Certificate issued by Armed Forces as equivalent to 10 Class pass in accordance with Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Dept. of Personnel and Training notification No. 15012/8/82-Estt (D) dated 12.02.1986 will also be considered. For educational qualification from overseas universities/boards, equivalent certificate issued by competent authority/State Government/Government of India should be submitted by the applicants. Minimum Educational qualification is not applicable to Freedom Fighters under CC2 category." 13. In terms of these requirements, eligibility criteria is that the applicant should be Indian Citizen, resident of India. Age should not be less than 21 years and not more than 60 years. Minimum Educational qualification is not applicable to Freedom Fighters under CC2 category." 13. In terms of these requirements, eligibility criteria is that the applicant should be Indian Citizen, resident of India. Age should not be less than 21 years and not more than 60 years. Proof of age should be supported by copy of 10 Standard Board Certificate/Secondary School Leaving Certificate/Birth Certificate/Passport/Affidavit for age/Identity card issued by Election Commission. The education qualification is minimum 10th Standard examination conducted by a Board/School. 14. Bare perusal of aforesaid criteria shows that the applicant is required to produce copy of 10th Standard Board Certificate, Secondary School Leaving Certificate etc. as proof of age and also in education qualification criteria and terms under the brochure, nowhere prescribe that if the applicant possesses higher qualification than the minimum required, he should produce certificate of higher qualification, nor respondents have pointed out any such stipulation. When the criteria do not require that any additional qualification should be supported by its certificate, it was improper on the part of the respondents to insist on producing HSC certificate. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not meet with the eligibility criteria. The petitioner is 10th Standard pass candidate and had produced requisite proof as prescribed. Therefore, Shri Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner was right in submitting that the objection as regard production of HSC certificate ought not to have been raised. This inference is fortified by Note below Rule 4. It reads as under: "Note: with regard to submission of documents by selected candidates: 1. All certificates/documents required for meeting Eligibility/Specific eligibility criteria should be in possession of the applicant and valid as on date of application. However certificates issued by Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR), Ministry of Defence, Government of India for Defense personnel can be of a date after the date of application but should be submitted within 10 days of intimation by Oil Company. Wherever, Caste Validity certificate is required, the same shall be submitted by the selected candidate within additional 10 days of stipulated time specified by the concerned State Govt. for issuance of such certificate (from the date of intimation to the selected candidate by the OMC). 2. In case certificate submitted by the applicants issued by various Govt. Wherever, Caste Validity certificate is required, the same shall be submitted by the selected candidate within additional 10 days of stipulated time specified by the concerned State Govt. for issuance of such certificate (from the date of intimation to the selected candidate by the OMC). 2. In case certificate submitted by the applicants issued by various Govt. Officials are not as per the given formats, the applicants would not be made ineligible if the contents are as per Corporation's requirements. 3. Applicable certificates/documents for Eligibility/Specific eligibility criteria would be required to be submitted by the selected candidates within 10 days of intimation (after draw of lots/bidding process). Additional 10 days' time shall be given in case the selected candidate fails to submit the applicable certificates/documents. In case the selected candidate fails to provide applicable certificates/documents within this time period, his/her candidature would be rejected under intimation through SMS/e-mail. 4. The selected candidate would be given opportunity to provide the rectified/corrected documents under rectifiable deficiency within 21 days' time, if the selected candidate fails to provide the required corrected/rectified certificates/documents within 21 days, his/her candidature would be rejected under intimation through SMS/e-mail." 15. Note 1 states that all certificates/documents required for meeting eligibility, specific eligibility criteria should be in possession of the applicant and valid as on date of application. Thus what is required is that the documents meeting eligibility criteria should be in possession of the applicant and they should be valid on the date of the application. No Rule is pointed out to show that if any candidate possesses higher qualification and makes a mention of it in the application, the same should be supported by requisite certificate. Therefore, in absence of any such Rule, it was not proper on the part of the respondents to raise such objection and far more improper to reject candidature on that count. 16. Selection was made by draw of lots as provided in Rule 14. The petitioner and one more candidate were eligible as per the draw of lots. Shri Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents fairly drawn attention to that the other candidate did not deposit 10% amount as security deposit and therefore, he has been rendered ineligible. He fairly conceded to that since this petition was filed, the selection procedure has not been carried further. Shri Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents fairly drawn attention to that the other candidate did not deposit 10% amount as security deposit and therefore, he has been rendered ineligible. He fairly conceded to that since this petition was filed, the selection procedure has not been carried further. The respondents ought to have considered the grievance raised by the petitioner in his letter dated 09-01-2020 and taken appropriate action on it. 17. In the circumstances, impugned order dated 30-12-2019 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider grievance raised by the petitioner in his communication dated 09-01-2020. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute.