As per case facts, Petitioner Mukesh Sharma sought a Letter of Intent for a petrol retail outlet, claiming to be the most meritorious candidate. He was initially empaneled, scoring 71.16% ... marks, including a significant portion for 'Land and Infrastructure'. A complaint by another candidate led to re-evaluation, where it was found that the petitioner had wrongly been awarded marks under the 'Land and Infrastructure' category due to a typographical error in his application, where he indicated unwillingness to lease land. The question arose whether the Respondent-Corporation could revise and reduce the petitioner's marks years later, especially when a Letter of Intent creates no vested right, and whether the petitioner's offer to rectify the error at a later stage was acceptable. Finally, the court held that the petitioner had no vested right to the Letter of Intent. His original marks were reduced from 71.16% to 37% because he failed to properly answer a crucial question regarding land transfer in his application. Since the revised marks were below the 60% qualifying threshold, he was not eligible. The court affirmed the respondent's right to correct factual errors, especially when no Letter of Intent had been issued, and rejected the petitioner's offer to rectify the application at this late stage as it would prejudice other candidates. The writ petition was dismissed.