JUDGMENT : (Ajay Mohan Goel, J.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That the decision dated 12.01.2023 by the Respondent No.2 with regard to Item No. 7 (?) 11 (Annexure P-13) of DDA District Level, Public Distribution Committee held for the selection/ allotment of Fair Price Shop qua Ward No.13 Village & P.O. Kiyao in Gram Panchayat Kiyao (15/20) whereby the same has been allotted to Respondent No.6 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be declared successful candidate for the allotment of Fair Price Shop at aforementioned place. ii) That the non-employment certificate (Annexure P- 17) dated 10.10.2022 issued by the respondents No.4 in favour of Respondent No.6 be declared null and void as the same is not issued in accordance with the notification dated 18.07.2017 (Annexure P-18). iii) That the respondent No.3 be directed to take action against the respondent No.4 & 5 in accordance with law for misusing his powers and not following the procedure lay down in Panchayati Raj Act itself.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in terms of Annexure P-12, notice dated 22.09.2022, respondents No.1 and 2 invited applications for the allotment of Public Fair Price Shop in Gram Panchayat Kiyao (15/20), Ward No.3, District Shimla. One of the conditions a candidate had to fulfill was that in case the candidate was unemployed, then he had to submit the Certificate of Unemployment along-with another Certificate that none of the family members was in regular employment anywhere. 3. To cut the controversy short, the petitioner participated in the process along-with other candidates and in terms of Annexure P-12, which are the minutes of the meeting of respondent No.2, dated 12.01.2023, the Fair Price Shop was allotted to the private respondent and as far as the petitioner is concerned, his candidature was rejected on the ground that he had not submitted a Certificate to the effect that none of his family members were in regular Government employment. 4. The factum of the father of the petitioner being in regular Government employment is not in dispute. 5. 4. The factum of the father of the petitioner being in regular Government employment is not in dispute. 5. Yet, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of the private respondent on the ground that the Certificate submitted by the private respondent that his father was a Semi- Government servant, was a bad Certificate as the father of the private respondent who was serving as a Gramin Dak Sevak, Assistant Branch Post Master, was to be construed as regular employee. 6. When this case was taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondents that the petition is not maintainable for the reason that as the petitioner was ineligible to participate in the process, he cannot be allowed to file and maintain this petition, assailing the selection of the private respondent. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents appended with the petition, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner indeed has no locus to file and maintain this petition. 8. It is not in dispute that the candidature of the petitioner in terms of Annexure P-13, has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not submit a Certificate to the effect that none of his family members were in Government Job. As already observed hereinabove, learned counsel for the petitioner had fairly submitted in the Court that the father of the petitioner was in regular Government employment. In terms of Annexure P-12, which is the notice inviting applications, only those unemployed educated persons were eligible to participate in the process, who had no family member in regular employment. In fact, to be more precise, the list of eligible entities who could have applied for the grant of Fair Price Shop are being mentioned herein-below, as they find mentioned in Annexure P- 12:- “ 1. First Priority: Public Institutions or Public Bodies in following order:- i) Gram Panchayat. ii) Self help groups iii) Co-operatives iv) Collective of women Preference may be given to institution located in the same ward. If more than one institution of same ward applies, preference may be given to the institution with earlier date of registration. 2. Second Priority: among following categories in the order given below:- i) Ekal Nari (as defined by the Department of Women and Child Development, Govt. of HP). If more than one institution of same ward applies, preference may be given to the institution with earlier date of registration. 2. Second Priority: among following categories in the order given below:- i) Ekal Nari (as defined by the Department of Women and Child Development, Govt. of HP). ii) Widows raising children on their own. iii) Physically handicapped person(as defined in the person with disabilities (equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and full participation) Act, 1995) capable of efficiently handling the FPS operation. iv) Ex-servicemen/unemployed educated person with no family member in regular employment. 3. Third Priority: H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.” 9. In the backdrop of the fact that the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the process and further in the backdrop of the fact that none other aggrieved candidate has actually come forth to challenge the allotment of the Fair Price Shop in favour of the private respondent, who might have been benefited in case the appointment of the private respondent is held to be bad by the Court, present petitioner cannot be said to be having any locus to file and maintain the writ petition. 10. A perusal of the prayer clause demonstrates that the prayer of the petitioner is that the allotment of the Fair Price Shop to the private respondent be set aside and he be declared as a successful candidate for the allotment of Fair Price Shop. In the light of the fact that the petitioner admittedly was ineligible to participate in the process, no such declaration can be given in his favour. As the petitioner was not eligible to be participate in the process, therefore, he cannot be said to be aggrieved by the allotment of the Fair Price Shop to the private respondent. The petitioner, therefore, has no locus to file and maintain the present petition. 11. Accordingly, in the light of the observations made hereinabove, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.