Dismissed

M.S.Guruprasadh v. the General Manager-South Zone

Madras HC3 Dec 2021WP/10061/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a 2010 interview select list for retail outlet dealers, the Court held that after 11 years have lapsed, the petitioner could not question the original decision. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to participate in future selections.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to participate in event of any fresh notification issued for retail outlet dealership.

M.S.Guruprasadh Vs the General Manager-South Zone — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.10061 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011

M.S.Guruprasadh

...Petitioner

1.The General Manager-South Zone, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, 4^th Floor,

¶10

Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶11

2.The Senior Regional Manager – Retail

¶12

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Regional Office, No.18/3, Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore – 641 001.

¶13

3.S.Justin ...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with adjustment of the 3 rd respondent as Sl.No.1 in the interview select list dated 29.09.2010 for the appointment of retail outlet dealers of the 2 nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to award the dealership in favour of the petitioner and allot Letter of Intent.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sriram

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.M.Vijayan

¶17

for M/s.King and Patridge [For R1 & R2] R3 Disd vide Court dated 04.10.2012

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The interview select list dated 29.09.2010 for appointment of retail outlet dealers of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶20

2.Pursuant to the notification issued by the second respondent Corporation, the petitioner submitted application for retail outlet dealership. The petitioner states that he is

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

fully qualified and the second respondent by manipulating the marks awarded in the interview appointed the third respondent as retail outlet dealer.

¶23

3.This Court is of the considered opinion that awarding

¶24

of marks based on the documents produced by the applicants by the Committee cannot be interfered with in ordinary circumstances. The process of selection is to be conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules and Procedures contemplated. However, in the present case the notification was issued in the year 2010 and the interview for the selected list was also completed in the year 2010. Admittedly, the petitioner was not successful in the selection and 11 years have lapsed. This being the factum established, the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the event of any fresh notification issued for retail outlet dealership by the Oil Corporations.

¶25

4.With this liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

s/d-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶30

cse

¶31

¶32

The General Manager-South Zone,

¶33

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, 4^th Floor,

¶34

Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore,

¶35

Chennai – 600 008.

¶36

The Senior Regional Manager – Retail

¶37

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Regional Office, No.18/3, Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore – 641 001.

¶38

+1 CC to Mr.M.Sriram, Advocate sr 63971

¶39

+1 CC to M/s. King & Partridge, sr 63873.

¶40

W.P.No.10061 of 2011

¶41

KG(CO) SP(17/12/2021)

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.S.Guruprasadh v. the General Manager-South Zone

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Guruprasadh v. the General Manager-South Zone

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

A.Vinayagamoorthy Vs the Chief Divisional Manager

K.Govardhanan Vs The Secretary

K.Saravanan, Vs The District Collector

P.Krishnan Vs The District Collector

A.Jayaranjani Vs The Medical Council of India

Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Vs the Secretary to Government