Inthiyaz Khan Jeevan Khan Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the impugned Notification dated 19.12.2011 issued by the respondent for distributorship of Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) at Bandi Atmakur, Kurnool district, by changing the category from Combined Category to Open Category in continuation of the earlier Notification dated 30.3.2010, as being illegal and arbitrary, and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondent to proceed with the selection as per the Combined Category.

¶22

The facts, in brief, which led to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows.

¶23

(a) Petitioner is a physically challenged person. Respondent issued a Notification dated 30.3.2010 inviting applications for awarding distributorship under RGGLV at Bandi Atmakur, Kurnool district, under Combined Category, under which defence personnel, para military/ police/government personnel, physically handicapped

¶24

3

¶25

personnel, outstanding sports persons, are eligible to apply. Since the petitioner is eligible, he submitted his application for award of the said dealership on 29.4.2010. The respondent prepared the final list of selected candidates by putting marks, wherein the petitioner secured 100% marks since candidature of another person who applied along with the petitioner was rejected. The respondent displayed the final list on 18.8.2010 wherein petitioner alone was shown as eligible, and the petitioner was informed that after field verification of credentials, appointment orders would be issued. Thereafter, the respondent served a letter No.KNT:LPG: RGGLV(Bandi Atmakur), dated 21.1.2011 on the petitioner informing that his candidature was cancelled on the ground that during field verification of credentials, it was observed that the original fixed deposit certificate was taken after the date of the advertisement, but as per Instruction No.10.3 of the application for RGGLV Distributorship selection, fixed deposits should have been taken on or before the date of advertisement.

¶26

4

¶27

(b) It is stated that when the petitioner approached the respondent and requested to consider his candidature stating that due to inadvertence, the fixed deposit was made after the date of advertisement, the respondent informed that they were likely to issue another Notification in continuation of the Notification dated 30.3.2010 and advised him to submit his application pursuant thereto.

¶28

(c) The respondent published the impugned Notification dated 19.12.2011 inviting applications for RGGLV Distributorship, wherein the category was changed from Combined Category to Open Category.

¶29

(d) According to the petitioner, by virtue of change in the category, there would be serious competition and he would be deprived of his legitimate right to get the said Distributorship. It is his grievance that he secured 100% marks earlier, but for deposit of the amount after the advertisement, his candidature was not considered, and that if the category is notified as Combined Category, he would be selected for the Dealership. According to the petitioner, since the impugned Notification dated

¶30

5

¶31

19.12.2011 is in continuation of the earlier Notification dated 30.3.2010, all the terms and conditions remain intact and if the impugned Notification is allowed to stand, manifest injustice would be caused to the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶32

Respondent filed counter affidavit admitting issuance of Notification dated 30.3.2010 for RGGLV at Bandi Atmakur location under Combined Category and rejection of application of the petitioner therefor and contending inter alia that the rejection order became final; that as there was no qualified candidate for the aforesaid location pursuant to the Notification dated 30.03.2010, the respondent readvertised the location; that petitioner himself accepted that he deposited the amount after the advertisement date which is in contravention of Instruction No.10.3 prescribed in the application which stipulates that the fixed deposits should have been on or before the date of the advertisement. It is further stated that as per Point No.18 of the Selection Guidelines, which deals with ‘Readvertisement of location’, it is clear that if no eligible

¶33

6

¶34

application is received or no applicant is left for draw, or RGGLV is terminated after one year of commissioning, then the location for RGGLV should be re-advertised. Further,

¶35

as per Point No.4 of the revision made in the Selection Guidelines vide Industry Note dated 15.6.2010, it is clear that the locations reserved under the CC category will be re-advertised under ‘open category’ as per the Policy. It is stated that the respondent strictly adhered to, the Selection Guidelines for re-advertisement, and in the absence of any challenge to the said Guidelines and in the absence of infringement of any legal right of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who belongs to Physically challenged category, applied in response to a Notification dated 30.3.2010 issued by the respondent for awarding distributorship under RGGLV at Bandi Atmakur, Kurnool district, under Combined Category; that under the Combined Category, defence personnel, para military/ police/government personnel, physically handicapped personnel, outstanding

¶37

7

¶38

sports persons, are eligible to apply; that the petitioner obtained 100% marks and was informed that he was eligible, but vide intimation dated 21.1.2011, he was informed that his candidature was cancelled on the ground that original fixed deposit certificate was taken after the date of the advertisement, as the same is contrary to Instruction No.10.3 of the application for RGGLV Distributorship selection; that the deficiency pointed out by the respondent for cancelling his cancellation is inadvertent. He submits that since the impugned Notification dated 19.12.2021 is in continuation of the earlier Notification dated 30.3.2010, changing the category from Combined Category to Open Category is not tenable, and in such an event, the chances of petitioner getting the Dealership are remote in view of heavy competition, and hence, he prays to allow the Writ Petition

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent, while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit, contended that during field verification of credentials, it came to light that the petitioner obtained fixed deposit after the advertisement

¶40

8

¶41

date and the same is admitted by him; that the same is in contravention of Instruction No.10.3 prescribed in the application which prescribes that the fixed deposits should have been on or before the date of the advertisement. He further submits that since there was no eligible application, the respondent re-advertised the same as per Point No.18 of the Selection Guidelines; that as per Point No.4 of the revision made in the Selection Guidelines vide Industry Note dated 15.6.2010, the location, which is reserved under the CC category, was re-advertised under ‘open category’ as per the Policy; that the action of the respondent is strictly in accordance with the Selection Guidelines, and in the absence of any challenge to the Selection Guidelines, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

¶42

Now, the point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the action of respondent in readvertising the Distributorship of RGGLV at Bandi Atmakur, Kurnool district location under Open Category under the impugned Notification dated 19.12.2011, is sustainable, and whether there is infringement of any legal or statutory right of the petitioner calling for interference of

¶43

9

¶44

this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ?

¶45

Pursuant to a Notification dated 30.3.2010 issued by the respondent, inviting applications for award of Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) at Bandi Atmakur, Kurnool district location, the petitioner, who belongs to physically challenged category, submitted his application on 29.4.2010. The petitioner gave a declaration in the application that if, on verification by the respondent, it is found that the information given by him is incorrect/false/ misrepresented, then his candidate stands cancelled and he would be declared ineligible for RGGLV. The respondent displayed final list on 18.8.2010 wherein the petitioner alone was shown as eligible provisionally.

¶46

Admittedly, the petitioner was informed that after field verification of his credentials, appointment order would be issued to him. It is not in dispute that pursuant to field verification of the credentials of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner produced a fixed deposit, which was obtained after the date of the advertisement. A perusal of

¶47

10

¶48

the material on record goes to show that Column No.10.3 of the application deals with ‘Fixed Deposit/NSC/Shares/MF, etc. ‘as on’ date of advertisement in the name of applicant and members of ‘family unit’. In the said Column, the petitioner furnished information regarding a fixed deposit bearing No.489138 for Rs.4,00,000/- standing in his name, which is dated 28.4.2010 i.e. which is obtained ‘after’ the date of the Notification 30.3.2010. As per Instruction No.10.3 of the application, the fixed deposits should have been on or before the date of advertisement. On this ground, which is found during field verification of the credentials of the petitioner, the respondent, vide letter dated 21.01.2011, intimated the petitioner that his candidature was rejected, as he failed to furnish the information called for, in column No.10.3 of the application, and the same was served on the petitioner on 28.1.2011. In view of the same, admittedly, there is no eligible applicant for award of RGGLV pursuant to the Notification dated 30.3.2010.

¶49

11

¶50

It is not in dispute that the allotment process of RGGLV by the respondent-Corporation is governed by ‘Common Selection Guidelines for Public Sector Oil Companies for selection of RGGLV’. As per Guideline No.18 of the Common Selection Guidelines for Public Sector Oil Companies for selection of RGGLV, if no eligible application/s is received, or no applicant has qualified or no applicant is left for draw, or RGGLV is terminated after one year of commissioning, then the location for RGGLV should be readvertised. Further, as per the revised Guidelines dated 15.6.2010 viz. ‘Industry Record Note on Modification/Clarifications with regard to Selection Process of RGGLV in the Manual for Selection of RGGLV-Revision 1’, OMCs were asked to re-advertise locations for which no candidates were found, and the locations reserved under the CC category will be readvertised under open category as per the policy. Accordingly, following the said Guidelines, the respondent re-advertised the location and gave the impugned Notification dated 19.12.2011 issued for distributorship of RGGLV at Bandi Atmakur, Kurnool

¶51

12

¶52

district location, by changing the category from Combined Category to Open Category. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the respondent is strictly in accordance with the Guidelines governing the field. Admittedly, there is no challenge to the validity or legal sustainability of the said Guidelines or the revised Guidelines dated 15.6.2010.

¶53

Further, as per the copy of the postal acknowledgement filed by the respondent along with the counter affidavit, the letter dated 21.1.2011, intimating the petitioner about cancellation of his candidature for not having complied with Notification for RGGLV under item No.10.3 of his application form, was served on the petitioner on 28.1.2011. In fact, the petitioner also admitted the said lache, in his writ affidavit and stated that he approached the respondent and requested to consider his application, stating that it is due to inadvertence. In the writ affidavit, it is also stated by the writ petitioner that the respondent authorities informed him that they would issue another Notification in continuation of the said Notification dated 30.3.2010 as no eligible candidate was

¶54

13

¶55

found in response thereto. So, the petitioner was aware of the fact that his candidature was not considered and the respondent was going to issue another Notification as per the Guidelines. Therefore, without availing the remedies available to him under law within a reasonable time, the petitioner waited till issuance of the next Notification and thereafter approached this Court, after lapse of more than 11 months of receipt of the said letter, intimating rejection of his application. Therefore, apart from failure to furnish relevant information as called for, in the application, there are delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner.

¶56

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned action of the respondent-respondent authorities is strictly in accordance with the Guidelines governing the field, and there is no infirmity. In the absence of infringement of any legal, statutory or constitutional right of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

¶57

14

¶58