A provisional draw winner has no right to allotment without satisfying eligibility conditions by the cutoff date.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. issued an advertisement dated 17 June 2017 for LPG distributorships under the RGGLV scheme. The petitioner applied for the distributorship at Village Bhada, East Champaran, and was provisionally declared successful in the draw of lots held on 11 January 2018. She thereafter deposited ₹40,000 as the prescribed security/FVC amount.

During verification, the respondents found that the Khasra/Khesra number of the showroom land mentioned in the petitioner’s application was incorrect and that she could not produce the requisite documents for that land. The petitioner asserted that the error was merely typographical and offered either a rectified lease deed or alternative land.

The alternative land was covered by a lease deed executed after the last date prescribed for submission of the application and was therefore held ineligible. The respondents rejected the petitioner’s candidature by letter dated 14 August 2018 and forfeited the deposited amount under the applicable Unified Guidelines.

During the proceedings, another candidate’s distributorship had been granted and commissioned on 2 February 2019.

Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature because the land particulars originally furnished were incorrect and the alternative land was covered by a lease deed executed after the prescribed cut-off date?

Whether the error in the Khasra/Khesra number constituted a rectifiable or merely technical defect warranting acceptance of the petitioner’s candidature?

Whether forfeiture of the ₹40,000 deposited by the petitioner was arbitrary or contrary to the applicable guidelines?

The Court applied the eligibility conditions contained in the advertisement and the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors, particularly Clauses 8A and 26, which required satisfaction of the prescribed land and documentation conditions as on the relevant cut-off date and authorised forfeiture of the FVC/security amount upon failure to satisfy those conditions.

It relied on M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Jha & Ors., 2012 (2) PLJR 783, for the principle that a public-sector corporation must adhere uniformly to the standards stated in its advertisement and cannot relax eligibility requirements for an individual candidate.

The Court also considered Rupesh Kumar Verma v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 2702 of 2022, where correction was permitted because the original and rectified lease deeds concerned the same identifiable plot and had identical boundaries; that principle was held inapplicable where the candidate admitted that the original particulars were incorrect and relied on a subsequently executed lease deed.

The Court held that success in the draw of lots was only provisional and did not create an enforceable right to allotment; the petitioner’s candidature remained subject to verification of her eligibility and documents under the Brochure.

The petitioner had admitted that the Khasra number stated in her application was incorrect and had failed to produce the requisite documents for the originally declared land. Her alternative land could not cure the defect because its lease deed was executed after the prescribed last date for submitting applications and therefore did not satisfy the eligibility requirements applicable on the relevant date.

The Court distinguished Rupesh Kumar Verma, observing that, unlike that case, the present matter did not involve an identifiable plot whose description alone had been mistakenly recorded and later rectified. Here, the original land particulars were admittedly incorrect and the alternative land was independently ineligible.

Since the Corporation was required to apply the advertised criteria uniformly and could not relax them in the petitioner’s favour, the rejection was neither arbitrary nor illegal. The consequential forfeiture of the deposited amount was also consistent with Clause 26 of the Guidelines.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.