AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Kanagaraj, J.—Both the Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the first one in W.P.Nos.126 of
2003 praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the selection made by the respondents 1 and 2 as displayed on the notice board of the office
of the third respondent for selection of LPG Distributorship for Velur, Namakkal District pursuant to the interview held on 29.10.2003 as null and
void being against the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India in No.P-39012/1/1999-IOC dated
9.10.2000 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the selection of the petitioner for LPG Distributorship at Velur (Namakkal
District) under PH-W category.
W.P.No.9818 of 2004 has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned
proceedings vide Notice Board of the third respondent in the Ref.No.NIL dated 29.10.2003 and quash the same insofar as placing the 4th and
5th respondents in Serial Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the merit list and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to appoint the petitioner
placed in Serial No.3 in the list as Distributor for Indane Gas under Physically Handicapped Category at Velur, Namakkal District.
On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for all the parties, it comes to be known that the
respondents 1 to 3/Indian Oil Corporation has issued an advertisement calling for applications for appointment of L.P.Gas (Indane) Distributors to
various locations including one of Serial No.25, Velur, Namakkal District under Physically Handicapped category (reserved for women) and both
the petitioners and the fourth respondent in the above writ petitions have applied for the same and they all have appeared before the third
respondent for an interview on 29.10.2003 and after interview, the third respondent has short listed the candidates for Velur LPG Distributorship
by empanelling the three candidates in the order of merit as follows:
G. Nallammal (the fourth respondent in both the W.Ps.)
A. Shanthi (Petitioner in W.P.No.126/2003 and R.5 in W.P. No. 9818/2004)
Vijaya (Petitioner in W.P.No.9818/2004)
Accordingly, the fourth respondent was awarded the L.P.G. Distributorship. Aggrieved by the selection of the fourth respondent as the LPG
Distributor, the rest of the two unsuccessful candidates have come forward to file the above writ petitions on ground that the 4th respondent
G.Nallammal does not possess the minimum educational qualification of SSLC/Matriculation (pass) whereas they are more qualified in all respects
against any of the other two candidates appeared for the interview and that the selection of 4th respondent as the Dealer by respondents 1 to 3 is
arbitrary and without any qualification/eligibility and is against the Evaluation of Guidelines of Dealer Selection Board issued by the Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi.
During arguments, Mr.R.Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.9818/2004 and the fifth respondent in
W.P.No.126/2003 would submit that the entire selection was on total non-application of mind by the respondents 1 to 3; that the petitioner in
W.P.No.9818 of 2004 has produced the nativity certificate and has also produced the details regarding the showroom building premises and two
vacant sites for the construction of Indane cylinder storage godown by way of producing a topo-map of Velur Urban & Rural area and also
produced the lease deeds for showroom as well as godown site situated at NH7 (across Velur town) in front of one godown site; that the I.O.C.
without considering any of the materials placed by this petitioner, has awarded more marks for the fourth respondent and that in any way, assessing
from any angle, this petitioner is more qualified than the other two candidates appeared for the interview; that she has completed her Higher
Secondary Course (+2 Level) during 1990 at Thottiam, Trichy District and certificate course in Library and Information Science at Annamalai
University and she is now working in M/s.K.P.K. Gas Service Point, H.P. Gas Distributor, Trichengode from 1.6.2001 and thus having
experience in the field of gas distribution and hence she should have been given preference. The learned senior counsel would also submit that even
in calculating the marks awarded to the candidates, there is a mistake, which would also prove the non-application of mind of the authorities of
respondents 1 to 3.
The learned senior counsel would refer to the addendum published by the respondents 1 to 3 in ''The Hindu'' dated 24.7.2000 to the earlier
notices dated 24.6.2000 and 16.7.2000 wherein it has been mentioned as follows:
.... Important Note 1: The candidate should furnish, along with the application, details of land, which he/she may make available for the LPG
Distributorship.
Considering the location of the land from the point of view of commercial angle, applicants willing to transfer the land on ownership/long lease to
IOC would be given preference.
If an applicant, after selection, is unable to provide the land indicated by him earlier within a period of two months, the allotment of the
distributorship made to him will be cancelled.
Laying emphasis on Note (2) above and producing the map showing the showroom and site of the petitioner, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner would submit that while giving particulars as required in the application form, the petitioner had given particulars and documentary proof
regarding two sites for godown purpose and one showroom area in the main town of Velur, to locate showroom and godown and in fact, out of
the two sites mentioned for godown purpose, one site is in the same area where the showroom has been shown and another vacant site for
godown shown by the petitioner is also closer to showroom i.e. on the same National Highway with a short distance of 0.7 k.m. and therefore the
godown and site mentioned by the petitioner is located in a good place from the point of view of commercial angle as required by the respondents
and since the petitioner has fully satisfied the said condition, she should have been given preference. At this juncture, the learned senior counsel
would cite a judgment of this Court delivered in M.N.ABDUL RAHIM Vs. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, IOC, MAWRKETING
DIVISION, MADURAI AND THREE OTHERS reported in 1984 Writ L.R. 481 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court having found that
the ''consideration of facts by the I.O.C. authorities on the mistaken assumption with regard to the residence and address of the person selected''
has quashed the selection of dealership.
The learned senior counsel would also cite yet another judgment of this Court delivered in V. Chandran Vs. Oil Selection Board, Tamil Nadu,
Pondicherry and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Madras and others, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held:
The 1st respondent and other such Boards constituted for other areas will be dealing with appointment of Indane Distributorship, allotment of
Petrol Bunks and other matters connected with sale and distribution of the products of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission of the Union of India.
Therefore, it should not result in distribution of larget of the State. The functioning, proceeding and decision of the 1st respondent should be
transparent so as to be free from criticism and arbitrariness. The proceedings of the Board should speak for itself. There should be a regular
proceeding drawn up discussing the mortise of each candidate and the reasons for selecting the required number of applicants out of several
applicants. AS the Board is headed by a retired Judge of the High Court, there should not be any difficulty in ensuring that the proceedings and the
decision of the Board are free from arbitrariness and informed by reasons. In other words, the decisions of the Board must speak for itself to avoid
arbitrariness and to ensure the propriety and regularity of the proceedings of the Board and the requirement of Art. 14 of the Constitution. We
accordingly issue the directions to respondents 1 to 3 in the aforesaid terms. We also direct the 3rd respondent to issue similar directions to all
other Oil Selection Boards constituted for other areas.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in its
Office Memorandum No.P-39012/1/99-IOC has issued guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers/LPG Distributors on 9.10.2000 to achieve
the object of providing transparent, uniform, fair and faster procedure for selection of suitable candidate as dealer/distributor and as per clause
3.10 the norms for evaluating the candidates has been fixed as follows:
The Dealer Selection Committee will judge the inter-se suitability of the candidates for all the categories, except Defence Personal as follows:
a) Personality, Business ability
and Salesmanship 20 Marks
b) Capability to arrange finances 15 Marks
c) Educational Qualification &
general level of intelligence 20 Marks
d) Capability to provide
infrastructure (land godown,
showroom etc.) and 35 Marks
e) General Assessment 10 Marks
---------
100 Marks
---------
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that even the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent before this Court is
silent about her eligibility criteria such as (1) Educational Qualification, (2) Experience in supervision of person and in business, (3) Infrastructure
for Godown and showroom, (4) general assessment etc. to support her claim as a candidate place at Serial No.1 of the merit list.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the third respondent ought to have seen that the petitioner is the only
person who satisfied the preference clause given in the conditions in the advertisement of the Corporation dated 24.7.2000 and when such is the
position, the respondents 1 to 3 have committed grave error in placing the petitioner at the third position after respondents 4 and 5 and the
selection of fourth respondent, who has failed in the SSLC examination in the year 1967 and not eligible for selection according to the Office
Memorandum dated 9.10.2000 is arbitrary and illegal. On such grounds, the learned senior counsel would pray for the relief extracted supra.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.126 of 2003, besides endorsing the arguments of the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.9818 of 2004 insofar as they are concerned with the fourth respondent and denying the same insofar
as the allegations made against the petitioner in this writ petition and the 5th respondent in W.P.No.9818 of 2004, would submit that the petitioner
is a Physically Handicapped Person possessing +2 (pass) educational qualification; that the fourth respondent is a failed candidate in the XI Class
of SSLC Examination in the year 1967 and when once the educational qualification was not there, the respondents 1 to 3 ought to have rejected
the application of the fourth respondent and the I.O.C. has not applied its mind and has selected the fourth respondent; that aggrieved, the
petitioner has sent a representation dated 7.12.2003 to the respondents 1 and 3 thereby stating that the selection of 4th respondent is against the
guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi and requested that she may be selected for the distributorship for
which a vague reply was received from the 1st respondent dated 29.11.2003 stating that selection of candidates and merit panel for the subject
distributorship has been made strictly as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry; that thereafter, the petitioner addressed a letter to the IOC
Grievance Cell, Mumbai pointing out that selection for a candidate has been made, who does not meet the minimum educational qualification and
requested intervention and on 28.12.2003, she also sent a letter to the first respondent thus extracting the relevant clauses of the dealer selection
guidelines regarding educational qualification and disqualification but so far no reply has been received and hence the petitioner has come forward
to file the above writ petition. The learned counsel would further submit that the selection procedure should have been transparent, in which event,
the petitioner should have been selected for the dealership. On such grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for the relief
extracted supra.
In reply, besides filing a counter, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent in both the above writ petitions would
submit that this is not an issue which could be determined in a writ petition by this Court since disputed questions of facts are raised by the
petitioners and if at all the petitioners are aggrieved of the non-selection, they ought to have preferred civil suits because the issue that has been
raised relating to the location of sites for the purpose of constructions of cylinder storage godown and the store room, cannot be gone into by this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent would further submit that one of the unsuccessful candidates, by name P.Mekala filed a
similar writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.34198 of 2003 and this Court by order dated 11.2.2004 dismissed the same, after verifying the
entire records connected to the subject and having found that the fourth respondent herein is a meritorious candidate than the said P.Mekala and
the said order of this Court would operate as resjudicata insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the selection list was published on 29.10.2003 by the third respondent and 818 of 2004
has been filed in moth of April, 2004 and that itself exhibits the malafide intention of the petitioners to prevent this respondent from starting the
dealership at Vellore, Namakkal District and these writ petitions have been filed at the instance of some existing dealers of Oil companies in order
to protect their personal interest and therefore the above writ petitions suffer from malafide intention, latches and amounts to abuse of process of
Court and hence they are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs; that this respondent has also obtained a letter of Intent from the I.O.C.
officials and invested huge money.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the mere statements of the petitioners on their own affidavits that they are only the better
candidates against any other candidate does not hold water; that the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.1918 of 2004 does not apply to the facts of the case in hand since the question of preference would not arise as this respondent hails
from the same area.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the selecting authority having verified all the credentials of the fourth respondent has
awarded her the dealership and this Court cannot go into the question of fact, while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the
decision of the selection authority shocks the conscious of the Court and here, not even a single averment was placed by the petitioners to shock
the conscious of this Court.
The learned senior counsel would read out passages from the counter affidavit filed by the I.O.C. wherein it has been stated that ''the
petitioners want this court to sit on appeal over the decisions of the third respondent, also evaluate facts, appoint each of the petitioners as the
selected candidate which is legally impermissible .... the selection was fair and as per the established policy, the panel revealing the positions was
released after the Selection Committee carefully evaluated all the candidates''. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the petitioner in
W.P.No.9818 of 2004 has affirmed in her affidavit that she has produced all the required documents along with the application, but, the I.O.C.
authorities, in their counter have categorically stated that she had not mentioned the details of the land in her application and therefore, the
averments that she satisfied all the conditions are incorrect and blatantly false.
The learned senior counsel for the 4th respondent would further submit that a learned single Judge of this Court has already passed order
regarding the very same impugned order and the only difference is that the existing dealers of oil companies have set up other persons to challenge
the same impugned order; that no doubt, the petitioner in the said writ petition was not short-listed and after the Court order in the said writ
petition, the fourth respondent was issued with the Intent and has also acted upon but because of the vexatious litigation of the petitioners, the
fourth respondent is not able to enjoy the fruits.
Insofar as the allegation of the petitioners regarding the educational qualification of the fourth respondent, the learned senior counsel would
submit that now the X standard is SSLC and that the selecting authority has satisfied himself with the certificates produced by this respondent and
this is not a trial Court to produce to prove their veracity and only to prevent this respondent from enjoying the fruits, the petitioners have filed
these writ petitions and would pray to dismiss both the above writ petitions.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/I.O.C., besides filing a counter and producing the original application forms
submitted by both the petitioners, he would submit that the petitioner in W.P.No.9818 of 2004 has submitted in her application that she does not
have the lands either for the godown or for the showroom and that she would make arrangements for the same in time and therefore the averments
of the petitioner regarding two sites being given by her are false and on this ground itself, the W.P.No.9818 of 2004 has to be dismissed; that the
petitioner in W.P.No.9818 of 2004 also did not give any locational advantage of the alleged sites; that the petitioners want this Court to sit on
appeal over the decisions of the third respondent and also evaluate facts which is legally impermissible; that as far as the educational qualification of
the fourth respondent is concerned, as per the certificate issued bythe Headmaster, she has passed one particular examination in the year 1965-
66which is now called as Matric; that all the points were carefully considered by the I.O.C. before appointing the fourth respondent and has
awarded the marks. The learned counsel would also produce the original marks sheets awarded by the I.O.C. to all the three short-listed
candidates. The learned counsel would refute the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.9818 of 2004 that there are
mistakes even in calculating the total marks and would submit that there seems to be one or two minor mistakes, but that would not constitute to
hold guilty the selecting authority of non-application of mind and that the entire selection process was done in accordance with the provisions of
law in a transparent manner and would call for no interference from this Court.
In reply, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.9818 of 2004 would submit that even though the order of empanelment was
pasted on the Notice Board of the Dealer Section Committee on 29.10.2003, the Corporation has not taken any steps for issuing letter of Intent to
any of the selected candidates in the merit list in view of the specific order of injunction granted by this Court in various writ petitions and only after
disposal of the writ petition, again the Corporation started processing the merit list and the petitioner who is a physically handicapped woman, with
great difficulties and with the help of others found out the eligibility or otherwise of the respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition and filed the above
writ petition immediately after getting all the particulars; that so far no distributor for LPG gas has been appointed at Velur, Namakkal District and
this is the first advertisement for selection of a LPG Distributor and hence there is no one to instigate this petitioner to file the above writ petition.
Regarding the allegation that the petitioner has not mentioned the details of the land in her application, which made her disqualify, the learned senior
counsel would read out clause (1) of Part II of ''the Eligibility Criteria for Award of Dealerships/Distributorships under ''Physically Handicapped''
Category/'' wherein it has been mentioned:
If any statement made in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application by the
candidate at any stage is found to be incorrect or false, his/her application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason ....
Citing the same, the learned senior counsel would submit that the applicant can submit all the documents at any stage pursuant to the
application and therefore it cannot be taken as a ground to nullify the merit of the petitioner. Repeating his arguments regarding the ''preference'',
the learned senior counsel would further submit that the argument put forth on the aprt of the fourth respondent that now, SSLC is equivalent to X
standard, is false since now a days SSLC is equivalent only to +2 and hence, the fourth respondent is not at all a qualified person to apply for the
dealership.
Regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, the learned senior counsel would submit that since the selection is arbitrary, the petitioner is at
liberty to challenge the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court also, in many cases, has quashed such illegal orders of
allotment. So far as the Order passed by this Court W.P.No.34198 of 2003, the learned senior counsel would submit that the same would not
bind the petitioner, as she is not a party to the same and that too the petitioner therein was not a short-listed candidate and the questions arose for
consideration are different from that of the present one. On such arguments, the learned senior counsel would seek for the relief in W.P.No.9818
of 2004.
The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.126 of 2004 would submit that insofar as the question of latches raised on the part of the
respondents, his case would not fall under the said category, since the writ petition has been filed even in January, 2004 and even an interim order
has been obtained on 6.1.2004. The learned counsel would further reiterate that the fourth respondent has not qualified SSLC and would submit
that when the eligibility criteria itself has not been fulfilled by the fourth respondent, the I.O.C. authorities have grossly erred in granting dealership
in her favour.
In reply, the learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that there are many judgments of the Honourable Apex Court
thereby holding that if a judgment or order has been passed, it is not a judgment in personam but a judgment in rem and hence since the very same
impugned order has been upheld by this Court in the order dated 11.2.2003 made in W.P.No.34198 of 2003, it will definitely bind the petitioners
also and on such arguments, would pray to dismiss both the above writ petitions.
In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for all, what could
be assessed by this Court is that these two petitioners in both the above writ petitions who were unsuccessful in the selection of LPG
Distributorship for Vellore, Namakkal District pursuant to the interview held on 29.10.2003 wherein the 4th respondent has been selected in
preference to these two petitioners and therefore in the first writ petition above, the petitioner therein would pray to declare the selection made by
the respondents 1 and 2 as displayed on the notice board of the office of the third respondent for selection of LPG Distributorship for Velur,
Namakkal District pursuant to the interview held on 29.10.2003 as null and void being against the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas, Government of India in No.P-39012/1/1999-IOC dated 9.10.2000 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider
the selection of the petitioner for LPG Distributorship at Velur (Namakkal District) under PH-W category.
Likewise, in the second writ petition in W.P.No.9818 of 2004 the petitioner therein would pray to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to
call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings vide Notice Board of the third respondent in the Ref.No.NIL dated 29.10.2003 and
quash the same insofar as placing the 4th and 5th respondents in Serial Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the merit list and consequently direct the
respondents 1 to 3 herein to appoint the petitioner placed in Serial No.3 in the list as Distributor for Indane Gas under Physically Handicapped
Category at Velur, Namakkal District.
Tracing the history of the whole affair in short, it is seen that respondents 1 to 3 have issued the advertisement calling for applications for the
appointment of LPG Gas (Indane) Distributorship to various locations including one of Serial No.25, Velur, Namakkal District under Physically
Handicapped category (reserved for women) and both the petitioners and the 4th respondent in the above writ petitions have applied for the same
and appeared before the third respondent for the interview on 29.10.2003 and thereafter, the third respondent, shortlisting the candidates, has
empanelled the petitioners and the 4th respondent in the order of merit, placing the 4th respondent in the first place, the petitioner in W.P.No.126
of 2003 in the second place and the petitioner in W.P.No.9818 of 2004 in the third place and accordingly awarding the LPG Distributorship to the
4th respondent.
The main attack of the petitioners against the selection of the 4th respondent in both the writ petitions is that she does not possess the minimum
educational qualification of SSLC/Matriculation pass whereas they are more qualified in all respects against any of the other two candidates
appeared for the interview and that the selection of the 4th respondent as the dealer of the respondents 1 to 3 is arbitrary and without the
qualification or eligibility and against the evaluation of the guidelines of the Dealer Selection Board issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Gas.
The admitted case of the 4th respondent is that she passed 10th standard in the year 1965-66 as per the SSLC book and it is Matriculation.
She would cause production of a certificate issued by the Headmaster of the concerned Government Higher Secondary School to the said effect.
Since it is vital to decide this basic necessity i.e. the educational qualification being a mandatory requirement for the selection as the LPG
Distributor and the inevitability of this basic qualification which would solve many a complication and avert lengthy discussions to be held into less
important issues, this mandatory requirement of the 4th respondent which is in high controversy needs to be probed into and settled prior to settling
the other issues.
The case of the 4th respondent is that during the year 1965-66, she passed out X standard i.e. Matriculation is violently false and patently
erroneous. She might have passed X standard during the said period with which this Court is not at all concerned. But, it is relevant to consider
whether a pass in X standard in the year 1965-66 was either SSLC or could it be taken as equivalent to Matriculation?
During the relevant period, 1965-66, a pass in XI standard Public Examination conducted under the authority of the Directorate of Public
Instructions in Tamil Nadu was only considered as SSLC and that was only equivalent to Matriculation. It is further relevant to reveal that the then
X Standard which the 4th respondent is said to have passed was not at all a public examination held but it was only the examination conducted in
the school itself and it could only be considered as a mere pass in the X standard school examination and the same not being S.S.L.C. Public
Examination passing which alone the S.S.L.C. was issued to the then standards maintained, at no stretch of imagination, the same could be termed
as SSLC which then was a pass in XI standard public examination and that was only equivalent to the Matriculation. Needless to mention that the
4th respondent does not possess the required basic educational qualification and this Court is unable to digest as to how the respondents 1 to 3 in
W.P.No.126 of 2004 have, thoughtless of the fact or without verification of the basic requirement, have concluded that the 4th respondent was
having the educational qualification required for the purpose of selection for the distributorship. The manner in which these respondents 1 to 3 have
decided the matter could not also be brushed aside saying that it was by mistake or oversight they have decided to accept a pass in X standard in
the year 1965-66 either as a pass in the S.S.L.C. Examination or treating the X standard pass during the said period on par with Matriculation.
Therefore, it could only be concluded that knowingly and wilfully and for extraneous reasons the respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.126 of 2004 have
decided that the 4th respondent was educationally qualified to be selected for the distributorship. It is still more surprising that a Headmaster of the
Government School, Paramathi has issued a false certificate offering opinion to the effect that ''a X standard pass in the year 1965-66 is now
Matriculation'' as though the then X standard pass was a pass in public examination so as to be treated equivalent to Matriculation. Under what
authority or proof, these respondents 1 and 2 and the Headmaster who issued the educational qualification certificate have arrived at such blunt
conclusions is only for them to explain, which they have failed to do.
So far as the notification issued by the Indian Oil Corporation is concerned, clause 2(c) dealing with the ''educational qualification'' requires
''minimum matriculate or recognised equivalent''. The respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.126 of 2004 who are responsible for going into this vital
aspect have not at all assessed the truth underlying the same nor assigned reasons for taking a X standard pass during the year 1965-66 and
treating the same either as S.S.L.C. or ''the minimum matriculate or recognised equivalent''. Therefore, the only conclusion that could be arrived at
in the respondents 1 and 2 deciding the 4th respondent as a minimum matriculate or a recognised equivalent is that they have uttered falsehood
betraying the system, the selection process and the very rule of law governing the system for extraneous reasons, duping the high public office that
they are in, which is nothing short of an act perpetrated on their part in the manner unbecoming to the positions held by them, even exposing
themselves to danger.
It could be borne in mind at this juncture that even in the matters of exercising discretion, it could only be done in a judicial manner since it is
only a ''judicial discretion'' by any authority that is required to be exercised since he is a creature under law and while law is such that even
regarding the exercise of the discretionary powers the authority has to find reasons, no mention need be made regarding the compulsion imposed
by law in dealing with the mandatory requirements such as the educational qualifications as required under clause 2(c) of the notification issued by
the Indian Oil Corporation pertaining to the selection of LPG distributors concerned with the above writ petitions. Therefore, the respondents 1 to
3 in deciding the 4th respondent to have had the educational qualification required under clause 2(c) of the notification has committed grave error
and instead it should have decided that the fourth respondent is far inferior to the standard required as a result of which they should have rejected
the case of the fourth respondent. On the other hand, the selection of the 4th respondent made by the respondents 1 to 3 as LPG distributor for
Velore, Namakkal District since being not in adherence to the requirements of the educational qualification, the same has to be declared erroneous
and void and the same is decided accordingly.
While such being the fact situation, so far as the mandatory requirement of the educational qualification of candidates is concerned, it looks
strange on the part of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent advancing the arguments to the effect that this Court is
bereft of the power to go into the factual position of the case as though the decision of the respondents 1 to 3 in declaring an educationally
unqualified person as qualified one so as to wrongly allot the distributorship is not either arbitrary or highhanded or even unreasonable and as
though such acts committed on the part of the respondents cannot be gone into and they become bluntly acceptable particularly since the said
aspect connecting to the basic qualification of the candidates has to be mandatorily observed to the requirement of the notification.
Since the case of the 4th respondent''s selection for the distributorship falls to the ground, thus the order of her selection becoming liable to be
quashed, it is not necessary on the part of this Court to go into the other minor aspects argued on the part of the petitioners and therefore this
Court is of the view that conclusions could be arrived at based on the erroneous conclusion arrived at on the part of the respondent authorities
No.1 to 3 pertaining to the mandatory requirement of the rules. Hence, it is enough to conclude the issue at this level itself.
Further since both the petitioners are seeking each of them to be selected for the distributorship, this Court sitting on the judicial review of the
above writ petitions, need not have to go into such facts regarding the suitability of each of these petitioners sitting in the place of the respondents
whose duty it is to decide in accordance with law and the governing rules, it is only desirable to refer the matter to the respondents 1 to 3 or such
authorities concerned to pass such orders in full consideration of the merit of both the petitioners and hence it is only desirable to refer the matter to
the respondent authorities concerned for the purpose of selecting the suitable one among these petitioners.
In result,
(i) both the above writ petitions are allowed in part to the extent indicated above.
(ii) The order of appointment of the 4th respondent G.Nallammal in both the W.Ps. above as the LPG Distributor for Velur, Namakkal District
pursuant to the interview held on 29.10.2003 and published in the Notice Board of the third respondent is hereby quashed.
(iii) The respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.126 of 2004 or such authorities concerned are directed to assess the suitability and the merits and ability of
both the petitioners in the above W.Ps. and to pass such orders in full consideration of their merit regarding selection of the dealer for the LPG at
Velur, Namakkal District at the earliest.
(iii) The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation or any authority, having the disciplinary control over the respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.126 of 2004, is
directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them for having violated the mandatory provisions of the notification in accepting falsely the 4th
respondent''s educational qualification as the required qualification under the Notification in spite of the same being far inferior to the standards set
by the Notification.
(iv) The Director of Higher Secondary Education, Chennai is directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Headmaster, Government
Higher Secondary School, Paramathi, for having issued the false certificate filed by the fourth respondent in these cases placing him under
suspension immediately and conducting an enquiry in accordance with the Disciplinary Rules and Law.
Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.736 and 11477 of 2004 are closed.
However, in the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.