AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Arun Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
The petitioner prays that he should be permitted to appear in the interview for the Dealership of retail outlet open category to be granted by respondent No. 2.
In the advertisement dated 21.9.2000, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it is stated that the applicants should apply by 30.10.2000 but it is admitted that the petitioner never applied within that period. In fact, the petitioner is relying on an application which he had given in pursuance of an earlier advertisement dated 31.12.1997 referred to in para 3 of the writ petition. We are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot rely on his earlier application. He should have filed a fresh application in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.9.2000 but he never did so. In Clause 10 of the advertisement dated 21.9.2000, it is mentioned that if any applicant had earlier applied against an earlier advertisement, he may obtain fresh application form free of cost. This means that the petitioner should have applied again but this time he would be given an application form free of cost instead of paying for the same.
Since the petitioner never applied against the advertisement dated 21.9.2000, we are of the opinion that his application against the earlier advertisement cannot be treated as an application against the advertisement dated 21.9.2000.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before us an interim order dated 19.4.2002 passed by a Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 16594 of 2002, Smt. Shalini Singh v. Union of India and Ors. Since this is an interim order, it is not a precedent and hence not binding on us.
This writ petition stands dismissed.