the women candidates, particularly widows, unmarried women, above 40 years of age, without earning parents, applying for dealerships reserved for ‘women category’, scheduled caste/scheduled tribe persons applying under SC/ST reserved category and war widows will not be assessed under the parameters ‘capability to provide land and infrastructure/facilities and capability to arrange finance’ under clause 5 (b) of the notification. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that on these two parameters, the petitioner should have been awarded full marks i.e., 35 and 25 respectively, instead of zero marks, and thereby aggregating with other marks awarded to her, she would get more than minimum 50% of marks required for short listing. The petitioner states that while evaluating her candidature under other parameters, the respondentcorporation has awarded her 47 out of 120 marks and declared as not qualified and the said evaluation apparently is erroneous, as the respondent-corporation did not take into consideration the exemption available to her under clause 5 (b) of the notification, referred to above. The petitioner also stated that she had made a representation, dated 19.7.2011 for rectifying the said anomaly, but the respondent-corporation under their reply dated 28.7.2011 have justified their action by placing reliance upon clause (c) of the advertisement. That action is questioned in this writ petition.
