Allowed

Sunanda Sadashiv Bhatagalikar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through Executive Director Lpg

Bombay HC17 Apr 2018WP/2865/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the respondent's denial of LPG distributorship eligibility based on the petitioner's B.A. Degree from Yashwantrao Chavan Open University. The court held the qualification valid and directed the allotment of the distributorship, dismissing the intervenor's challenge to a re-draw.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was held entitled to the LPG distributorship, respondents directed to allot it, and the intervenor's application rejected.

Sunanda Sadashiv Bhatagalikar Vs Indian Oil… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

- 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2865/2018

¶5

Sow.Sunanda w/o Sadashiv Bhatagalikar,
aged 45 yrs., occu.household,
r/o Near Jakapur Colony, Metre Plot,
Patange Road, Omerga. Tq.Omerga
Dist.Osmanabad.
...Petitioner..

¶6

Versus

¶7

1]Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
(A Public Limited Company),
Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9,
Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai. Through its
Executive Director, LPG.

¶8

2] Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Aurangabad Area Office, Abish Tower, 1^st Floor, Behind Baba Petrol Pump, Mahavir Chowk, Aurangabad - 431001. Through its Chief Area Manager / Senior Manager (LPG).

¶9

...Respondents...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and
2.

¶12

 .....

¶13

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &

¶14

 K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶15

DATE: 17.04.2018

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M. Borde, J.):

¶17

WP 2865/18

¶18

1]Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition
is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶19

2]The petitioner is praying for quashment of the
order passed by the respondent – Petroleum Company on
12.3.2018 holding the petitioner ineligible for allotment

¶20

of LPG distributorship at the advertised location at
Anala Tq.Paranda Dist.Osmanabad. The reason assigned for
holding the petitioner ineligible is that according to

¶21

the respondent – company, the petitioner has failed in
10thStandard examination, which is the minimum
educational qualification prescribed under the Unified
Guidelines. It is also further informed that though she

¶22

has submitted mark-sheet of B.A. examination, but the

¶23

same does not satisfy the eligibility criteria of 10th
Standard passing from the recognized Board. The
petitioner contends that she has passed final B.A.
Examination conducted by Yashwantrao Chavan Open
University, Nashik. The petitioner relies upon the
Government resolution dated 20.5.2011, which prescribes

¶24

that the students who successfully complete preparatory
programme are eligible for direct entry to the first year

¶25

WP 2865/18

¶26

- 3 -

¶27

B.Com. / B.A. Degree programme of Yashwantrao Chavan Open
University. The petitioner contends that the process of
selection requires minimum educational qualification of

¶28

10th / 12th Standard. The petitioner further contends
that the qualification obtained from Yashwantrao Chavan
Open University is recognized by the University Grants
Commission and since the petitioner has passed the final
B.A. Degree examination from the said Open University, it

¶29

shall be deemed that she possesses the requisite
qualification. As per the Important Note recorded under

¶30

the caption “Evaluation Procedure”, a candidate after
successfully completing Preparatory and F.Y. B.Com. of
the University shall be considered to have acquired SSC /

¶31

HSC equivalent qualification. Important Note (2) read
with paragraph no.4.1 (Eligibility Criteria) prescribed
by the Petroleum Company leads to the conclusion that the
petitioner who has acquired B.A. Degree from Yashwantrao
Chavan Open University, which University has been
accorded recognition by the University Grants Commission,

¶32

shall be deemed to be eligible and fulfills the
eligibility criteria. It cannot be disputed that
acquisition of B.A. Degree is a superior qualification

¶33

WP 2865/18

¶34

- 4 -

¶35

than that of passing 10th or 12th Standard examination.

¶36

3]In this view of the matter, the hyper technical
approach adopted by the Petroleum Company does not
deserve to be approved. The petitioner shall be deemed
to fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed by the
Petroleum Company and shall be held entitled as a
successful candidate in view of draw of lots conducted on
13.12.2017 for awarding the LPG distributorship at the
advertised location and it is accordingly directed. The
respondents shall take further steps for allotment of LPG
distributorship in favour of the petitioner.

¶37

4]During the pendency of the petition, for the

¶38

impugned location, the Petroleum Company held re-draw of
lots and it is informed that in the said process, re-draw
of lots have been drawn. This Court by order dated
19.3.2018 directed the respondent – company to proceed to

¶39

conduct the draw, however, not to declare the results of
draw. It does appear that one applicant namely Chetan
Bhimrao Shinde in Civil Application No.5294/2018
participated in the draw of lots during the pendency of
the petition and claims to be successful candidate.
Since the process itself is subjected to challenge in the

¶40

WP 2865/18

¶41

instant petition and since the Court had restrained the Petrolum Company to declare the results of the draw, the intervenor does not have any entitlement to claim any relief nor he is entitled to intervene in the instant petition. The proceedings in respect of draw of lots during the pendency of the petition shall be deemed to be infructuous in view of the directions issued by this Court to the Petroleum Company to hold the petitioner eligible. Learned counsel appearing for the intervenor is not present. Even for the reasons recorded above, the intervenor does not have any entitlement in view of the interim orders passed by this Court during the pendency of the petition. Hence, Civil Application No.5294/2018 for intervention stands rejected.

¶42

5]Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms

¶43

with no order as to costs.

¶44

ndk/ c1741826.doc

Sunanda Sadashiv Bhatagalikar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through Executive Director Lpg

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunanda Sadashiv Bhatagalikar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through Executive Director Lpg

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Chinam Nallawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Upper Commissioner Tribal Development Department Amravati Division

Vikram Limbaji Khodkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Gajai Magasvargiya Audhyogic Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit through President S S Dhepe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sagar Maschya Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. through Its President Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Rashid Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Umesh Sudhakar Kale and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Bhimrao Bhanudas Kachkure Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others