material on record further discloses that on 22.3.2005 i.e. after the interview, the petitioner herein made a representation, requesting the respondent authorities to consider the documents enclosed with the same. The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the RespondentCorporation by virtue of proceedings No.SDO/R/Advt/Int-VII dated 5.4.2005 rejected to consider the same. As per the notification, the last date for submission of the applications with enclosures complete in all respects was 19.1.2004 and admittedly, the petitioner herein did not submit the documents. In fact, basing on the documents produced by the petitioner, the interview committee awarded marks and the petitioner herein could not get the place in the merit list. Having failed to submit the necessary documents either along with application or at the time of interview, it is not open for the petitioner herein to find fault with the action of the respondents. The question of having the benefit under clause 11 of the notification would not arise to the petitioner as she did not satisfy the minimum requirements as per the eligibility criteria as per the conditions stipulated. Another aspect which needs mention in this context is that the persons who got more marks than the petitioner are not shown as parties to the Writ Petition, as such on this ground also, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Having participated in the process of selection and having failed to come up in the selection process due non-compliance of basic requirements, it is not open for the petitioner to assail the said requirements. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that there are absolutely no merits in the present Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
