Petitioner sought writ to quash selection results and direct reassessment of marks. Court found prayer infructuous following endorsement by petitioner and dismissed petition without costs.
No order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.12.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.23958 of 2006 and M.P.No.2 of 2006
R.Sivanesan ..Petitioner vs 1.The General Manager, (Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry), Indian Oil Bhavan, 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 2.The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 500, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. 3.The Selection-Committee, O/o.The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 500, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
4.Mr.A.Saravana Kumar .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the entire records pertaining to the publication of results for selection of Dealers in Korukupettai issued in favour of the fourth respondent, by the second respondent in CDO : DSB dated 04.07.2006 and quash the same with the consequential direction, directing the respondents to reassess the marks awarded by the third respondent in terms of I.O.C Brochure on selection of retail outset dealers and as per
guidelines published on 05.11.2005 including assessment of Financial Status, and evaluation of the project report of the petitioner, by adopting uniform yardsticks in comparing the work – experience and personality of both the petitioner and the fourth respondent.
For Respondents : Mr.V.Ananthanatarajan, for R1 to R3 Mr.S.Thiruvengadan for R4
O R D E R The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prayer in the writ petition has already became infructuous and he had also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. Recording the same, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kak To 1.The General Manager, (Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry), Indian Oil Bhavan, 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 2.The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 500, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
3.The Selection-Committee,
O/o.The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 500, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
+1cc to Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan, Advocate, S.R.No. 83580 +1cc to Mr.V.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.82486
W.P.No.23958 of 2006
AD(CO)
GN(20/12/2018)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Sivanesan
The General Manager, (Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry), Indian Oil Bhavan
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
