JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has assailed the decision of the respondent authorities in Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) whereby they have selected and appointed the respondent no. 3 for the dealership of a Regular/Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) at a location advertised as ‘Within 5 KMs from Numaligarh Tiniali on RHS of NH-37 (old) while moving from Numaligarh towards Dergaon’ and also for a direction to issue a Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner for the dealership of the said Regular/Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump). 2. The background facts which are not in dispute, can be narrated, in brief, as follows: 2.1. By a notice published in the daily English newspaper ‘The Assam Tribune’ in its issue dated 25.11.2018, applications were invited by the respondent IOCL for appointment of retail outlet dealers at various locations in the State of Assam. It was mentioned that the applications for the retail outlets along with online payment of non-refundable application fees, as applicable, had to be submitted online by the last date of submission fixed on 24.12.2018. The last date of submission of the applications was, later on, extended up to 25.12.2018. The notice published in the newspaper further mentioned that the detailed advertisement and the brochure were available in the website and the applicants, in their own interest, should carefully go through the same and understand the conditions of selection before submitting their applications. One of such locations advertised for appointment of retail outlets was ‘Within 5 KMs from Numaligarh Tiniali from RHK of NH-37 (old) while moving Numaligarh towards Dergaon’ (‘the Location’ for short). 2.2. In response to the notice, the petitioner submitted his application by filling up the details in the prescribed format of application along with the requisite application fee on or before the last date of submission for the Location. The Location was advertised for the candidates from the OBC Category. The petitioner’s application reference no. was 15457028932371. On 19.01.2019, the petitioner was informed by the respondent authorities in the IOCL that he had been qualified for draw of lots of Retail Outlet dealership for the Location. He was asked to be present in person along with an identity card at the scheduled time on 30.01.2019 at the address mentioned therein. 2.3. was 15457028932371. On 19.01.2019, the petitioner was informed by the respondent authorities in the IOCL that he had been qualified for draw of lots of Retail Outlet dealership for the Location. He was asked to be present in person along with an identity card at the scheduled time on 30.01.2019 at the address mentioned therein. 2.3. The petitioner accordingly attended the draw of lots at the scheduled venue on 30.01.2019. The draw of lots took place on 30.01.2019 as per schedule and in the said draw of lots, the petitioner was declared as the successful candidate for the Retail Outlet dealership at the Location. The petitioner was intimated to that effect by the respondent IOCL authorities by a communication dated 31.01.2019. The petitioner was also requested to remit an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards initial security deposit by online and to submit a set of documents, specified therein, within 10 (ten) days at the address mentioned for the purpose of processing his application further for award of the Retail Outlet dealership at the Location. The petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 40,000/- online for processing his application on 08.02.2019. The petitioner has averred that he had submitted the documents mentioned in the communication dated 31.01.2019. 3. The case of the petitioner projected in this writ petition is that after depositing the amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards initial security deposit and submission of the documents for processing his application, he was awaiting further communication from the respondent IOCL authorities regarding issuance of Letter of Intent for the Retail Outlet at the Location. When the petitioner was awaiting for a favourable outcome in respect of his application he came to learn that the respondent IOCL authorities were going to conduct a fresh draw of lots for the Location on 18.07.2019. 4. Heard Mr. M. Alom, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 5. Mr. Alom has submitted that the petitioner emerged as the successful candidate in the draw of lots and he deposited the initial security deposit as well as the documents within the stipulated time period as mentioned in the communication dated 31.01.2019. As such, without informing him about the final outcome in respect of his application, the respondent authorities could not have gone for a fresh draw of lots. He has submitted that the selection of the respondent no. As such, without informing him about the final outcome in respect of his application, the respondent authorities could not have gone for a fresh draw of lots. He has submitted that the selection of the respondent no. 3 is therefore liable to be set aside. He has contended that the respondent authorities in an arbitrary manner had decided to reject his application. 6. Mr. Bharadwaj responding to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to the statements made affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted by him that after receipt of the initial security deposit and the documents from the petitioner pursuant to the communication dated 31.01.2019, the same were verified. Upon such verification, the documents pertaining to the OBC category status was found to be not in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular/Rural Retail Outlets (‘the Brochure’) published by the 3 (three) Public Sector Oil Companies including the respondent IOCL. The rejection of the application of the candidature of the petitioner was duly intimated to the petitioner on 07.03.2019 in his Email ID. As the Email ID in which the said communication was sent, was the Email ID which the petitioner had mentioned in his application, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the intimation of the rejection of his candidature was not communicated to him. It is further submitted by him that the documents with regard to the OBC Category status of the petitioner was not found in consonance with Clause 4(vi)(b) and the Note appended to the said Clause in the Brochure. It was a condition that an applicant had to be in possession of a valid OBC caste certificate as on the date of the application. As the petitioner had failed to submit the same within the stipulated time period, the application of the petitioner had, thus, entailed rejection and accordingly, it was rejected. 7. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record brought by the parties through their pleadings. 8. As the petitioner had failed to submit the same within the stipulated time period, the application of the petitioner had, thus, entailed rejection and accordingly, it was rejected. 7. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record brought by the parties through their pleadings. 8. From the projections made by the parties, the only issue that has arisen for consideration in this writ petition is: whether the candidature of the petitioner for the Retail Outlet dealership at the advertised Location was rejected on grounds in conformity with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the Brochure, which have laid down the selection procedure. 9. The Guidelines for Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rurals Retail Outlets through Draw of Lots/Bidding Process (‘the Brochure’ for short) have provided for the procedure of selection of dealers for regular/rural retail outlets through draw of lots/bidding process. It is not in dispute that the Location is reserved for OBC category candidates. In Clause 4 of the Brochure, the eligibility criteria for individual applicants (proprietorship/partnership) have been mentioned in detail. The common eligibility criteria set forth therein, are meant for all categories who apply as individuals. The specific eligibility criteria have laid down the terms and conditions in respect of applications of different reserved category candidates. 10. In so far as the applicants belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, the relevant specific eligibility criteria are mentioned in Clause 4 (vi)(b) and the Note appended to the said Clause 4 and for ready reference, the same are extracted herein-below: “(b) Other Backward Classes (OBC) The candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes recognized as OBC by Government of India (Central Government) under the Constitution of India and/or recognized by the concerned State as OBC in which the location has been advertised will be eligible. The candidates will be required to submit as and when advised by Oil Company, a certificate issued by the competent authority notified by the Government of India and/or by the concerned State in which the location has been advertised certifying that the candidate belongs to Other Backward Classes recognized as OBC by a Resolution/Gazette Notification issued by GOI (Central Government)/State Government. Along with the OBC certificate (Appendix-VII A), the candidate also has to submit an undertaking (Appendix-VII B) that he/she belongs to the OBC category and fulfils the non-creamy layer status. The date of undertaking (Appendix VII B) will be treated as the date of reckoning for OBC status of the candidate and also for determining that the candidate does not fall in the creamy layer. The undertaking should be of any date after the date of advertisement. 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. *** *** *** 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 Government for issuance of such certificate (from the date of intimation to the selected candidate by the OMC). 2. In case certificates submitted by the applicants issued by various Government 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 candidate 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 the 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/email.” 11. When the petitioner was informed by the communication dated 31.01.2019 that he was the successful candidate in draw of lots conducted on 30.01.2019 for the Retail Outlet at the Location, he was asked to submit a set of documents within 10(ten) days to the respondent authorities. One such document which the petitioner was required to submit in respect of the specific eligibility criteria was: Additional documents in support of specific Eligibility criteria: Category Eligibility Certificate format OBC 1. Appendix VII-A and VII-B 12. One such document which the petitioner was required to submit in respect of the specific eligibility criteria was: Additional documents in support of specific Eligibility criteria: Category Eligibility Certificate format OBC 1. Appendix VII-A and VII-B 12. In response to the said communication, the petitioner submitted a notarized affidavit in the standard form by swearing it on 02.02.2019. The petitioner submitted another affidavit, sworn on 07.02.2019, stating that he had applied for the certificate of Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat vide an application dated 06.02.2019. The petitioner had submitted the OBC Caste Certificate issued under the signature and seal of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat, which was dated 06.02.2019. 13. Clause 4(vi)(b) of the Brochure has specifically set forth that the date of undertaking is to be treated as the date of reckoning for OBC status of the candidates and also determining that the candidate does not fall in the creamy layer. The Note has further set forth that all certificates/documents required for meeting eligibility/specific eligibility criteria should be in possession of the applicant and valid as on the date of the application and such certificates/documents for eligibility/specific eligibility criteria have to be submitted by the selected candidate within 10 (ten) days of intimation after the draw of lots/bidding process. An additional 10 (ten) days’ time is provided for in case the selected candidates fails to submit the applicable certificates/documents and in case the selected candidate fails to provide the applicable certificates/documents within the said time period, the candidature of the applicant will entail rejection. 14. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner had obtained the OBC Caste Certificate in the prescribed format given in Appendix-VII-A only on 06.02.2019, meaning thereby, he was not in possession of the OBC Case Certificate as on the last date of the submission of the application for the advertised Location. The said position which is taken by the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition as the reason for rejection of the candidature, has not been traversed in any manner by the petitioner by filing any reply affidavit. 15. In the application bearing reference no. 15457028932371, submitted by the petitioner on-line, he had given his e-mail account as: talukdarjitu10@gmail.com. While depositing the application fee of Rs. 5,000/- on 25.12.2018, the petitioner mentioned the same e-mail account. 15. In the application bearing reference no. 15457028932371, submitted by the petitioner on-line, he had given his e-mail account as: talukdarjitu10@gmail.com. While depositing the application fee of Rs. 5,000/- on 25.12.2018, the petitioner mentioned the same e-mail account. The respondents sent the communication dated 19.01.2019 to the petitioner to the same e-mail account. By the e-mail dated 19.01.2019, the petitioner was informed that he was qualified for draw of lots to be held on 30.01.2019 and he was requested to attend the draw of lots at the time and the venue mentioned therein. The petitioner accordingly attended the draw of lots. When the petitioner informed by the letter dated 31.01.2019 that he was declared as the successful candidate, he deposited the initial security deposit on 08.02.2019 on-line by mentioning the same e-mail account. The respondents by an e-mail sent to the same e-mail account of the petitioner on 07.03.2019 informed him that he was not found eligible for Retail Outlet dealership on the basis of the documents submitted by him. When all other communications sent to the same e-mail account of the petitioner were duly received by him the contention of the petitioner that he did not receive the e-mail sent to his same e-mail account on 07.03.2019 is found to be specious and not tenable. It is not the case of the petitioner also that he had given a different e-mail account to the respondents at any point of time for sending all the communications to that different e-mail account. Such a plea clearly appears to be an afterthought. 16. It appears apposite, at this stage, to take note of the background facts, in brief, involved in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 6928-6929 of 2015 (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others vs. Swapnil Singh), decided on 08.09.2015. In Swapnil Singh (supra), applications for selection of regular LPG distributorships were invited in April, 2011 by BPCL. One of the eligibility criteria was that the applicant should own a plot of land of adequate size and specific descriptions provided therein, on the date of application. The applicant should have ownership title of the property or registered lease agreement for a minimum 15 years in the name of the applicant/family member as defined in multiple distributorship form of eligibility criteria. The applicant should have ownership title of the property or registered lease agreement for a minimum 15 years in the name of the applicant/family member as defined in multiple distributorship form of eligibility criteria. The respondent submitted an application on 13.09.2011, wherein by offering a plot of land, he mentioned the date of registration of the Sale Deed/Gift Deed/Lease Deed/Deed of Mutation as 13.09.2011. After the draw of lots, on 30.03.2012, the respondent was found successful and on 19.02.2013, Field Verification was carried out to verify whether the respondent actually was the owner of the land or a lease holder as required by the Brochure. During the process of Field Verification, it came to the knowledge of the appellant BPCL authorities that the respondent had entered into the lease agreement only on 20.12.2012 for a period of 15 years and that lease agreement was registered only on 21.12.2012. It was, thus, found out during Field Verification that the respondent did not have a registered lease deed as on the date of application i.e. 13.09.2011. Having found so, the appellant BPCL authorities cancelled the allotment of the LPG distributorship to the respondent by a letter dated 11.06.2012. 16.1. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred a writ petition and ultimately, the matter reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had found that the respondent had only a notarized lease agreement dated 13.09.2011 in his possession on the date of submission of his application on 13.09.2011. The registered lease deed came into existence only on 20.12.2012, which was registered on 21.12.2012. It was, therefore, observed that on the date of the application, the respondent therein was not eligible in terms of the Brochure and the application form since he only had a notarized lease deed dated 13.09.2011, instead of a registered lease deed, on the date of submission of his application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that Brochure and the application form were absolutely clear in the sense that the applicant must be the owner of the specified area of land or must have a registered lease deed of the specified area of land on the date of application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that Brochure and the application form were absolutely clear in the sense that the applicant must be the owner of the specified area of land or must have a registered lease deed of the specified area of land on the date of application. Accordingly, it was observed that the respondent was not eligible on the date of application i.e. 13.09.2011 and no fault was found with the decision regarding rejection of the candidature of the respondent therein taken by the respondent BPCL authorities. 17. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the clear view that the petitioner was not in possession of the requisite OBC Caste Certificate in terms of the application form and the Brochure as on the date of submission of his application and the OBC Caste Certificate in the prescribed format of Appendix-VII-A came into existence on a subsequent date. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for the Retail Outlet dealership for the advertised Location is found to be in observance to the terms and conditions set forth in the application and the Brochure. In the above fact situation obtaining in the case, it cannot be said that the decision-making process in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for Retail Outlet dealership was vitiated in any manner. Since the petitioner is found ineligible to be awarded with the Retail Outlet dealership for the advertised Location on the date of submission of his application, the writ petition is found bereft of any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.