Partly allowed

The Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 2 Ors. v. Momi Basumotari

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026WA/336/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this intra-Court appeal, the High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision rejecting the appellants' challenge. The Court held that uploading the wrong page of a lease-deed was an inadvertent, curable error once the original was produced, rather than a permanent disqualification affecting eligibility.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed in limine; the judgment of the Single Judge upholding the respondent's selection was upheld.

The Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 2 Ors. Vs Momi… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010175392026

2026:GAU-AS:13688-DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WA/336/2026

¶6

1.THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE - INDIAN OIL BHAWAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI - 400051.

¶7

2: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER TINSUKIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE SRIPURIA PATH TINSUKIA PIN - 786125.

¶8

3: THE DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES HEAD TINSUKIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE SRIPURIA PATH TINSUKIA PIN - 786125

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

MOMI BASUMOTARI

¶11

W/O THAKUR BASUMATARY, R/O VILL- HALUA, P.O.- BORHAT, DISTRICT - CHARAIDEO, ASSAM -785693.

¶12

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Gogoi, Advocate.

¶13

– B E F O R E –

¶14

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶15

16.09.2026

¶16

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶17

We have heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned Advocate for the appellants/ Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 2 Ors. and Mr. S.R. Gogoi, learned Advocate for the sole respondent.

¶18

Page No.# 2/4

¶19

In this intra-Court appeal, the appellants have questioned the judgment and order dated 17.07.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.5791/2024.

¶20

Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short, “IOCL”), on 28.06.2023 for selection/appointment of a Regular Rural Retail Outlet Dealership (Petrol Pump) at various locations in Assam, the respondent applied for one location falling somewhere between Salkathoni Tea Estate and Titlagarh in the district of Charaideo, Assam, under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category as a Group-I candidate.

¶21

On the date of application made by the respondent i.e. 17.10.2023, she had executed a registered lease-deed for a plot of land for setting up the petrol pump, which lease was for 30 years.

¶22

The supporting documents in favour of the application were not required to be uploaded immediately but only after the selection in the draw of lots, for the purposes of verification.

¶23

During the verification of the documents furnished by the respondent, it was discovered that the lease-deed, uploaded by the respondent, described the commencement date of lease as 18.10.2023 i.e. one day after the application was made. This was treated as a material deficiency affecting the candidature of the respondent as a Group-I candidate. Another mis-match was also noted by the IOCL in the name of the father of the respondent in the Scheduled Tribe Certificate when compared with the name of her father in the HSLC certificate.

¶24

It appears that the IOCL had intimated the respondent to rectify

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

the name of her father; but considering the effective date of the leasedeed to be a day after the application was made, to be incurable. This ultimately led to the rejection of the candidature of the respondent.

¶27

When the respondent had approached this Court, it was pleaded by her that inadvertently the wrong page of the lease-deed had been uploaded, which showed the commencement date from 18.10.2023. The original registered lease-deed dated 17.10.2023 clearly reflected that the lease commenced from the date of execution and registration itself i.e. 17.10.2023.

¶28

Before the learned Single Judge, it was argued on behalf of the respondent that in view of the provisions made in the Brochure for Selection (in short, “Brochure”), a provisionally selected candidate has to be given 21 days’ time to make suitable amendment in the documents. Thus, both the defects, which were discovered by the IOCL during verification, it was argued on behalf of the respondent, were curable.

¶29

The IOCL, however, contested such proposition and argued that the respondent did not remain as an eligible Group-I candidate as she did not have a plot of land for setting up the Petrol Pump Outlet on the date of application. It was contended that rectification is possible under the Brochure but only under limited situation.

¶30

The other limb of argument on behalf of the IOCL was that provisional selection does not confer any right to alter an incurable or material eligibility condition.

¶31

The learned Single Judge, as it appears from the impugned judgment, has perused the original lease-deed produced before it and

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

found that it showed that the lease commenced from 17.10.2023, which was the date of execution and registration both. Thus, it was found that dubbing of the defects as incurable by the IOCL was misconceived in view of the original documents.

¶34

The learned Single Judge also relied upon Clause 23 of the Brochure which does not suggest that a wrongly uploaded document could be a ground for rejection. In that case, the Brochure contemplates verification of the original documents and only when the original is not produced within the stipulated time, the application could be rejected.

¶35

We too are of the view that uploading of the wrong page was an inadvertent error and, therefore, is a curable defect. The IOCL ought to have considered the candidature of the respondent.

¶36

Thus, we uphold the judgment dated 17.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that regard and dismiss the present appeal in limine with an observation that this order shall not be treated as any precedent.

¶37

This appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

¶38

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

The Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 2 Ors. v. Momi Basumotari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 2 Ors. v. Momi Basumotari

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