Dismissed

Kalpana Kumari v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC17 Oct 2014CWJC/17861/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the selection of a respondent as a retail outlet dealer. The court held that the petitioner could not challenge the advertisement's terms post-application and found no error in the selection committee's process or the impugned order. The writ application was disposed of by dismissing the petitioner's claims of arbitrariness and ineligibili

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; the impugned selection order was upheld.

Kalpana Kumari Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17861 of 2014

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Kalpana Kumari w/o Braj Kishore Singh, r/o village Hilsar P.O. Bhagwanpur Hat, P.S. Bhagwanpur Hat, District Siwan.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶7

2.The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 17, Jamshedpur Tata Road, Mumbai through the Chairman.

¶8

3.The General Manager, North Central Range Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 1 Nehru Nagar, Enclave Gomati Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.).

¶9

4.The Senior Regional Officer, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. 5.Rakesh Saran s/o Mr. Tripurari Saran, r/o village P.O. & P.S. Bhagwanpur Hat District Saran.

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harsh Anuj, Adv For the Respondent H.P.C.L: Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Adv For the Respondent No. 1 : Kanak Verma, C.G.C.

¶13

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶14

(Date-17.10.2014)

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The prayer of the petitioner in this writ

¶17

application reads as follows:-

¶18

“for quashing the order by which candidature of Mr. Rakesh Saran has been selected to retail outlet dealership at N.H. 101 Bhagwanpur Hat, Siwan in pursuance of Advertisement dated 22.9.2011 because the selection of respondent No. 5 is not proper, bad in law and against the guidelines for selection of Retail out let dealer and also for an appropriate declaration and holding that this petitioner deserved her selection in pursuance of advertisement dated 22.9.2011.”

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.17861 of 2014 (2) dt.17-10-2014

¶21

¶22

of the aforementioned prayer has basically concentrated on the aspect that the authorities of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the H.P.C.L.,) have not been acted in a fair and transparent manner because when they have advertised their 85 locations it is only in respect of three locations that they have fixed the particular place whereas for the rest of them, it is the long stretch of the in the National Highways (N.H.) which has been sought to be taken into consideration. He would, accordingly, submit that such an arbitrary action which also has prejudiced the petitioner by way of rejection of her claim should be held to be bad and this Court therefore should declare the decision of the H.P.C.L., as contained in the impugned order dated 19.06.2014 (Annexure-9) to be bad.

¶23

In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the H.P.C.L., has also been wavering in their stand not only before the authorities

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.17861 of 2014 (2) dt.17-10-2014

¶25

¶26

but also before this Court and in this regard reliance has been placed on a counter affidavit filed by the authorities of the H.P.C.L., in C.W.J.C No. 14267 of 2011.

¶27

Learned counsel for the H.P.C.L., on the other hand has submitted that the case of the petitioner was examined threadbare in respect of all the facts stated in this writ application and in fact a reasoned order was passed by the competent authority, wherein, the claim of the petitioner was found to be wholly misconceived.

¶28

This court on perusal of the impugned order would find that each and every aspect which has been raised by the petitioner in this writ application has been gone into at length in detail. Firstly, the petitioner has raised the issue of identification of the village. It has to be noted that the petitioner was an applicant for the location at Bhagwanpur Hat and in respect of that the authority has held that the H.P.C.L., did not find claim of the petitioner of non-existence of Bhagwanpur Hat to

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.17861 of 2014 (2) dt.17-10-2014

¶30

¶31

be incorrect on verification from the revenue records which went to show such place of Bhagwanpur Hat is very much existing. To that extent, it would be relevant to quote the following portion of the impugned order:-

¶32

“In the advertisement for retail outlet dealerships, either a stretch is advertised or a location /name of village are advertised. The location is advertised in National daily newspapers giving vide publicity to attract large number of responses. Thus, there is no ambiguity in the location advertised and it can be easily identified from the Advertisement.”

¶33

From the aforementioned consideration, it

¶34

would be clear that the authorities of the H.P.C.L., has gone strictly by the revenue records which in no uncertain terms has the name of Bhagwanpur Hat as a fixed place. Therefore when the authorities had sought to advertise the location of Bhagwanpur Hat and the petitioner could not satisfy the requirement of having land in Bhagwanpur Hat, inasmuch as, her offered land was found to be in mouza Hilsar, she cannot be said to be eligible.

¶35

The issue that the authorities have not been very correctly advertising the location and in fact for

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.17861 of 2014 (2) dt.17-10-2014

¶37

¶38

other stretches and location the National Highway being made the basis also has been dealt by the authorities in the impugned order which does not seem to be either incorrect or illegal. The respondents infact have also correctly analyzed the case of the petitioner as would also be apparent from the following extract of the impugned order:-

¶39

“Based on the evaluation of Project Reports, 2 marks has been awarded to Kalpana Kumari, 1 mark to Anupam Kumar and 2 marks to Rakesh Sharan out of total 3 marks. These marks are awarded by the selection committee based on the comparative evaluation of the reports and are the average of marks awarded individually by three different members of the committee and thus, no comments can be made on the same since the same are based on subjective evaluation of the selection committee.

¶40

-Marks in other parameters viz.; Personality, Business Acumen & Capacity to generate business are awarded basis applicants‟ performance during the interview based on the assessment by a three member committee and are the average of the marks awarded individually by three different members of the committee and thus, no comments can be made on the same.

¶41

-L2 committee gets access to L1 committee marks only after the interview is over and marking by L2 committee is completed. Thus, the allegation that L2 committee is biased because of L1 committee marks, is not substantiated.

¶42

-Location-Marauhra, SH 73, Dist. Siwan was advertised in the earlier advertisement dated 11.06.2010. Marauhra is a town area under jurisdiction of Marauhra Nagar Parishad. Thus, the area coming under Marauhra Nagar Parishad was considered during selection process.

¶43

-The reference of C.W.J.C No.-14267/2011 is of no use since the same has been dismissed as being DEVOID OF MERIT on 15.05.2013 by Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Patna, which, by its detailed judgment vindicated the stand of the Corporation and correctness of

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.17861 of 2014 (2) dt.17-10-2014

¶45

¶46

the Speaking order under challenge in the said Writ petition.

¶47

-However, in the current advertisement location „Bhagwanpur Hat‟ is available on NH-101 (as confirmed by Circle Officer in his letter dated 17.01.2013) hence, only „Bhagwanpur Hat‟ has been rightly considered for evaluation.

¶48

-Land/finance/other documents of all the applicants have been scrutinized and compared with the originals at the time of application scrutiny. However, the same shall be again verified at the time of FVC in line with the dealer selection process before the Letter of intent is issued.

¶49

As noted above, the marks awarded to the candidates Kalpana Kumari and Anupam Kumar are in line with the Dealer Selection Guidelines and their complaints are not established.

¶50

In view of the above, the allegations and claims made by Kalpana Kumari and Anupam Kumar vide their representations/complaint dated 13.12.2012/04.03.2013 and 24.12.2012/21.02.2013 (personal hearing attended by Anupam Kumar) respectively are without any merit and remain unsubstantiated and the complaints are disposed, as rejected.”

¶51

When these observation and findings have been dictated by this Court learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no conclusive finding may be recorded in this regard by this Court as the petitioner now intends to raise this issue in P.I.L.

¶52

In the considered opinion of this, once the petitioner had applied for a particular location in terms of an advertisement, she cannot be allowed to raise any challenge to assail the terms and conditions of the

¶53

Patna High Court CWJC No.17861 of 2014 (2) dt.17-10-2014

¶54

¶55

advertisement. It was always open for the petitioner to file a writ petition questioning the advertisement itself but having participated and taken chance for being selected she can be allowed to question the decision of the authorities and/or assail the decision after being rejected only on the ground of ineligibility of land and/or lesser marks allotted in course performance in the interview. She however cannot be allowed to now raise the question of any error/illegality in the advertisement itself.

¶56

This Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also cannot go into the merits of the policy decision of H.P.C.L. but can only look into the decision making process and examine validity of reason for not selecting the petitioner. No such error, however is found in the decision making process of the H.P.C.L. as fully explained in the impugned order.

¶57

Patna High Court CWJC No.17861 of 2014 (2) dt.17-10-2014

¶58

¶59

That being so, this writ application fails, and

¶60

is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶61

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)
Ranjan/-
U

Kalpana Kumari v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpana Kumari v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thakur Ram Ganga Prasad Ltd. Vs

M/s Ganesh Traders Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Om Prakash Bhardwaj Vs Begusarai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Authorised Officer Cum Branch Manager State Bank Of Inida Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Barhwa Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Asmania Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.