Allowed

Penchela Kasturi v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Oct 2023WP/13458/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's candidature for an LPG distributorship. The court held that rejecting eligibility based on the date of issuance of a provisional certificate, while ignoring the earlier date of the statement of marks indicating course completion, was arbitrary and irrational.

What did the court decide?

The impugned rejection proceedings dated 03.05.2023 are set aside; the respondent is directed to treat the mark statement date as the qualification date and reconsider the petitioner's case.

Penchela Kasturi Vs Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 13458 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. Penchela Kasturi W/o. Giribabu, aged about 41 Years, Rio. Nagileru Village, Narayanavanm Post and Mandal, Tirupati District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Sastry Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶11

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., rep., by its Managing Director, having its registered office at 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai.

¶12

The Deputy General Manager, LPG HPCL, Anantapur, LPG Regional Office, NH44, Taticherla Village, Vadiyampet Post, Anantapur 515731.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or. Direction..more particularly_in the . nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for LPG Distributorship at Puttur-Narayanavanam vide proceedings Ref.ARO/AKA/BATCHMATTER dated 03-05-2023, of the 3rd Respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, non-application of mind and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of the clauses of Distributorship Selection Guidelines, 2013 and consequently direct the Respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the documents submitted by the petitioner and appoint her as LPG Distributor at Puttur-Narayanavanam, Chittoor District.

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to make any further selections to the LPG Distributor shipt at Puttur-Narayanavanam, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. -

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SMT.M. UMA DEVI, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI G. RAMAGOPAL, SC FOR HPCL

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

qj `i ~.P. No.13458 of 2023

¶21

¶22

I1ON'BLE SR)[ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATTI

¶23

WRI1I' PETITION INlos. 13458 of 202.3

¶24

COMMON ORDER:

¶25

The relevant facts that led to filing of this writ petition, in brief, are that, pursuant to the notification for appointment of LPG Distributors issued on 15.09.2013, the petitioner submitted her application on 18.11.2013, which was registered as application No.IMP/ARO/PTR/017. The petitioner received a notice vide Ref. ARO/IMP/AKA dated 14.09.2022 from the^3rd respondent stating that the application submitted by her is incomplete and requested .to submit proof of educational qualification, fresh standard format of OBC certificate and fresh notarized affidavit. In

¶26

response thereto, the petitioner had submitted relevant documents along with her representation. With regard to educational qualification, though the petitioner had certificate of three years B.Com degree in computers, the petitioner had submitted certificate regarding one year Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology, under mistaken impression that the same would meet the eligibility criteria of the notification. Thereafter, the^3~d respondent vide letter in Ref. ARO/IMP/AKA dated 09.11.2022, informed the petitioner that she was qualified for draw for selection of LPG Distributorship and in the draw the petitioner was declared as selected

¶27

c9 i ' cP No.13458 of 2023

¶28

¶29

candidate for the subject LPG Distributorship and as directed, the petitioner deposited amount for carrying out Field Verification of Credentials. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter stating that her candidature was rejected on the ground that she did not have required educational qualification. In response thereto, the petitioner made a representation to the^3rd respondent on 22.02.2023 stating that though she is a degree holder during the years 2010-2013, under mistaken impression that diploma itself would meet the eligibility criteria she did not mention the said fact in the application. Along with the representation she had submitted the provisional certificate and three years marks statement and also other basic qualification cert:ificates to the 3rd respondent. Having learnt that the 3rd respondent is going to award the distributorship to some third parties, without considering her representation, the petitioner got filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.7415 of 2023, but the same was dismissed. Assailing the said orders, the petitioner got filed writ appeal vide W.A.No.369 of 2023 and Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ appeal, directing the respondent corporation 1:o consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2023 objectively by a reasoned order. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent,, without considering the petitioner's case on merits and without going into the documents

¶30

`W. P.No.13458 of 2023

¶31

¶32

submitted by her, rejected her case vide orders dated 03.05.2023, on the ground that the provisional certificate submitted by the petitioner was issued on 21.08.2014, which is much later than the cut of date i.e. 18.11.2013. The rejection order dated 03.05.2023 is arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Aricle-14 of the Constitution and contrary to the clauses in Distributorship Selection Guidelines, 2013. Assailing the said rejection orders, this writ petition is filed.

¶33

The 3 respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit, inter alia contending that, as per Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorship, 201:3, the applicant should possess minimum educational qualification of Graduation in any field, Chartered Account, company secretary, cost accountant, Diploma in Engineering or equivalent qualification recognized by the Ministry of HRD, Government of India as on the date of application. The petitioner, in her application, indicated that she is holding diploma in engineering from Indian Institute of Paramedical passed in the year 2005, however, she did not submit any documentary proof of her educational qualification. In response to the letter addressed to her, she submitted copy of her one year Diploma Course in Medical Laboratory Technology. The candidates were called for draw of lots was solely based on the information mentioned in the

¶34

ti l

¶35

¶36

` ..Q?No.13458 of 2023

¶37

application. The authenticity or genuineness of the information was to be verified physically during Field Verification of Credentials of i:he successful candidate. If the information given in the application is found to be false affecting the eligibility, the candidature of the candidate would be cancelled. The petitioner was declared as successful candidate. During Field Verification of Credentials, it was found that the subjects mentioned in the diploma certificate were non-engineering subjects and therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. There was no mention of possessing degree by the petitioner either in her application form or during Field Verification of Credentials. It was only on 22.02.2023, the petitioner submitted a representation stating that, apart from diploma she was also having B.Com (Computers) graduation degree during the academic years 2010-2013. The Division Bench of this Court passed orders in Writ Appeal directing the Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner objectively by a reasoned order. Thereafter, the petitioner made fresh representation dated 17.04.2023. The petitioner submitted her application for Distributorship on 18.11.2013, whereas provisional degree certificate of the petitioner was issued on 21.08.2014. Therefore, the petitioner did not possess the subject degree as on the date of submission of her application. Hence, her representation dated 22.02.2023 cannot be considered.

¶38

`W.2 No.134S8 of 2023

¶39

¶40

Accordingly, the representations of the petitioner were rightly rejected by the authorities. There are no grounds to interfere with the reasoned order so passed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶41

The petitioner filed reply affidavit denying the contents of the counter affidavit and further contending that, the mark statements produced by the petitioner along with her representation show that she became eligible and qualified for consideration as on the date of application. As per Guideline No.15 of the Guidelines on Selection of Regular LPG Distributorship from May 2013 onwards, the applicants who have become eligible after rectification of deficiencies will get added to the list of K3 of eligible candidates and the final list eligible candidates should be prepared. However., the 3rd respondent without following the procedure_ mentioned in the guidelines, followed his own procedure while rejecting the application. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶42

Heard Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. M.Uma Devi, learned Central Government counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri G.Ramagopal, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.2

¶43

&3.

¶44

X1;,9 `W ~r.No.13458 of 2023

¶45

¶46

Sri Korrapati Subbarao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, though the petitioner was possessing B.Com (Computers) Degree as on the date of submission of application, she was under mistake impression that holding Diploma in Medical Lal:oratory Technology is as good as holding the Diploma in Engineering as specified in clause 9.1 of the manual and thus the same would meet the eligibility criteria. Soon after receipt of the letter dated 17.02.2023 inform ing her that diploma held by her is not equivalent to diploma in Engineering, she submitted representation 22.02.2023 enclosing all relevant documents in proof of her holding decree. Though the provisional certificate is dated 21.08.2014, however, the mark statements submitted by the petitioner make it clear that by the date of submission of application she had completed the course. However, the authorities, without considering the dates on which the mark statements were issued, having laid undue emphasis on the date of provisional certificate, rejected the representations submitted by the petitioner. The rejection order suffers from irrationality and the same is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for^they petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Mark lists filed along with the writ petition.

¶47

Per contra, Sri G.Ramgopal, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, vehemently opposed the contentions raised by

¶48

c1C,9 W P.wb.134S8 of 2023

¶49

¶50

the learned counsel for the petitioner and justified the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the representations of the petitioner, contending that, as per Appendix-Ki, if the applicant does not have graduation degree, her candidature would be rejected. Since the Diploma held by the petitioner was found not equivalent to the Diploma in Engineering and as the petitioner did not mention holding of any graduation either in the application nor did she inform the same at the time of Field Verification of Credentials, the authorities had rightly rejected her candidature. The petitioner sought to introduce new documents to meet eligibility criteria, which is not permissible and the authorities have rightly declined to receive such documents and thus the action of the respondents is justified. The same requires no interference. Unless there is arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides, Courts cannot interfere with the administrative action. In the instant case, none of the grounds to interfere are available. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶51

The learned Standing counsel placed reliance on (1) Jagdish Manda/ vs. State of Orissa and otireisl, Michigan Rubber (India)

¶52

r~M

¶53

(2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 517

¶54

'V •i~ `r .'?No.134S8 of 2023

¶55

¶56

Limited vs. State of Karnataka and others and Montec;ar/o Limited

¶57

vs, National Thermal Power Corporation Limited.

¶58

The simple issue to be resolved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to introduce documents to prove that she had possessed educational qualification compatible with the eligibility criteria as on the last date of submission of application, regarding which there was no mention in the application, if so, whether the date of issuance of marks lists can be considered as the date of qualifying the examination.

¶59

Perused the material available on record.

¶60

Clause 9.1 of the PSU Oil Marketing Company's Manual for Selection of Regular LPG Distributors specifies Common Eliqibility Criteria for all Categories applying as Individual. According to the said clause, the applicant should have any one of the following educational qualification.

¶61

a) Graduation in any field

¶62

b) Chartered Accountant

¶63

c) Company Secretary

¶64

d) Cost Accountant

¶65

e) Diploma in Engineering

¶66

Z . (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 216 3. (2016) 15 Supreme Court Cases, 272

¶67

2C'.9 No.13458 of 2023

¶68

¶69

Concededly, the petitioner did not mention her B.Com degree qualification, in her application, submitted for allotment of Distributorship. She had mentioned therein only regarding her Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology. During Field Verification of Credentials, the said Diploma was found not meeting the eligibility criteria of Diploma in Engineering. Resultantly, the petitioner's candidature was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations to the authorities stating that she possessed graduation and she submitted all relevant documents in proof of her submission. The said representations were rejected on the ground that the provisional certificate produced by the petitioner was issued on 21.08.2014, whereas the petitioner had submitted her application on 18.11.2013. Therefore, the petitioner did not quality under the eligibility criteria mentioned in Clause 6.1.11. of the Selection Guidelines.

¶70

The decisions relied on by the learned Standing Counsel enunciate the principles that judicial review of decision making process is permissible if it suffers from arbitrariness or mala fides or procedure adopted is to favour one. If decision is taken according to language of tender document or decision subsor?c~s purpose of tender, then courts must exercise principle of restraint. Further, technical evaluation or

¶71

q ,j ' <L Wo.13458 of 2023

¶72

:LO

¶73

comparison of Courts would be impermissible. Principles of interpretation of tender documents involving technical works and projects requiring special skills are different from interpretation of contractual instruments relating to other branches of law. The Courts would not normally interfere with the policy decision and in matters challenging the award of contract by the State or public authorities. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides.

¶74

Keeping in view the above established principles of law, now the material placed on record has to be scanned to find out whether the impugned rejection is justified or not.

¶75

In the derision in Char/es K,Skari,a and others vs, Dr. CMathew and others4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma, the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor.

¶76

4 . (1980) 2 SCC 752

¶77

qc,9 zN p.No.134S8 of 2023

¶78

¶79

As already stated, as per eligibility criteria, the petitioner must have possessed graduation in any field as on the last date of submission of applications. The provisional certificate submitted by the petitioner to the authorities along with her representation was issued on 21.08.2014 i.e. to say much subsequent to the date on which the petitioner had submitted her application on 18.11.2013. However, the marks statements of the petitioner filed along with this writ petition, which were also submitted along with the representations, show that the statement of marks for the 3rd year were issued on 20.09.2013 itself i.e. to say that the petitioner could successfully completed her graduation course on 20.09.2013, which is about two (02) months prior to the submission of application by the

¶80

petitioner seeking Distributorship.

¶81

Therefore, the authorities have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner could only get the eligibility on the date of issuance of provisional certificate without considering the date on which the statement of marks were issued, is unreasonable and irrational.

¶82

lit is also relevant here to note that, so far no third party interest was created in the subject Distributorship. Further, admittedly, the

¶83

¶84

icy

¶85

`W. cP.No. X 3458 of 2023

¶86

petitioner alone had applied for the said Distributorship is also a relevant factor to be borne in mind.

¶87

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings bearing Ref:ARP/AKA/BATCH MATTER dated 03.05.2023 of the^3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is directed to treat the date on which the 3rd year statement of marks of the petitioner was issued as the date on which she had acquired the qualification of Graduation and reconsider her case to find out whether she is eligible in all

¶88

other aspects. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶89

As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated!.

¶90

Sd/- S.SRINIVASA PRASAD _ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR___

¶91

/!TRUE COPY//

¶92

SECTION OFFICER

¶93

To,