Mozaffar Hossain Khan vs Union of India and Others

Dipankar Datta, J.—For appointment of dealers under the Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak Scheme (hereafter the scheme) by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the second respondent (hereafter HPCL), an advertisement was published in a Bengali daily on January 21, 2014 inviting interested individuals to offer their candidature. The advertisement contained all the particulars relating to eligibility of a candidate as well as the details of the locations where the aforesaid corporations wished appointment of dealers.

One of the conditions of eligibility was that the applicant must have a closing balance of Rs. 4,00,000/- in a savings account of a bank/post office on the last date for submission of applications specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). The last date for submission of applications was February 24, 2015 by 5.00 pm.

The petitioner selected Chunfuli in the district of 24 Parganas (South), an advertised location, for appointment as dealer by HPCL. The application, in the ''Standard Application Format'', was submitted by him on February 19, 2014. Inter alia, against Sl. No. 10 of the format requiring an applicant to declare the amount in a savings account in a bank/post office, the petitioner disclosed that he maintained a savings account with the United Bank of India and the closing balance was Rs. 4,20,000/-. The note appended to Sl. No. 10 (hereafter ''the said note'') reads:

"The amount declared above in each case must be available as closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) and the same would be verified during Field Verification".

After the petitioner submitted his application, a corrigendum was published whereby, inter alia, the last date for submission of applications was extended till March 24, 2014.

HPCL received 5 (five) applications in all, out of which the petitioner and the fifth respondent were found eligible to participate in a draw for selection. Clause 13.4 of the scheme envisages a draw, should there be eligible applicants more than 1 (one). Fortune smiled on the petitioner; in the draw that was conducted, he emerged victorious and came to be selected. However, in course of field verification on March 7, 2015, it was detected that his closing balance as on March 24, 2015 was less than Rs. 4,00,000/- and, accordingly, by an order dated March 12, 2015 issued by the Senior Regional Manager of HPCL, the fourth respondent, the petitioner''s candidature stood rejected.

The order dated March 12, 2015 is impugned in this writ petition.

The only question that arises for an answer on this writ petition is, whether on the terms of the advertisement as well as ''the said note'' extracted above, the petitioner was required to keep a balance of Rs. 4,00,000/- in his bank account on March 24, 2014.

I have heard learned advocates for the parties.

The basic facts are not in dispute. The answer to the question formulated above has to be given upon proper reading and understanding of the relevant terms of the advertisement and ''the said note''. Since the advertisement is in vernacular but the correct English version thereof is available in the ''Standard Application Format'', I do not consider it necessary to refer to the advertisement.

A plain reading of ''the said note'' would make the position clear that the closing balance of Rs. 4,00,000/- must be available on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). Reading of ''the said note'' without appreciating the object of insertion of the words ''corrigendum (if any)'', to my mind, would be incomplete. A corrigendum could be issued altering eligibility conditions or locations and/or both; it could also be issued simply extending the time limit for submission of applications. The situations calling for issuance of corrigendum cannot be exhaustively laid down. However, it cannot be gainsaid that an applicant who submits his application together with all the particulars/documents required by the scheme may not ordinarily be concerned with any corrigendum that the authority in its wisdom chooses to issue in future, unless of course a condition of eligibility or the location itself is sought to be changed thereby rendering the application itself, filed by such applicant, defective. Should there be no change in the conditions of eligibility or the location, such applicant is not obliged in law to rummage through newspapers daily to find out whether any change is notified or not; on the contrary, he is entitled to rest content and expect consideration of his application in accordance with law. It could very well be so that the number of applications received for appointment of dealer within the last date fixed for submission of applications specified in the advertisement is not upto the expected level and the need to extend the time to submit applications is felt. With the extension of time there could be other applicants who acquire eligibility, thereby entitling them to apply. It could be so that these applicants did not have Rs. 4,00,000/- as closing balance on the last day for submission of applications as specified in the advertisement and, therefore, had not applied, but may have accumulated such amount in their account by the extended date for submission of applications. Such extension of time could result in an entitlement of such applicants to apply and if within the extended date further applications are received, the scope of consideration is widened. In the circumstances, the conjunction or in ''the said note'' is intended to provide an alternative to those applicants who seek to apply within the time extended by the corrigendum to have Rs. 4,00,000/- as closing balance on the last day for submission of applications as specified in such corrigendum. Reading of the note in the manner argued by Mr. Kundu, learned advocate for the HPCL and its officers and Mr. Barua, learned advocate for the fifth respondent would result in an absurdity of sorts. While granting largess, the ''State'' cannot impose unreasonable conditions. One cannot be expected to leave aside all work and devote time to find out a corrigendum likely to be issued, and that too at not so prominent a place in daily newspapers which now run into several pages (at times with unreadable content). The date of submission of application is vital and a purposive interpretation of ''the said note'' inclines me to hold that the first alternative therein would be applicable for those who submit their applications within the time limit specified in the advertisement and the second alternative to those who respond pursuant to the corrigendum. To put it differently and viewed in the facts of the present case, the closing balance of Rs. 4,00,000/- had to be reckoned for individual applicants bearing in mind two dates, i.e. February 24, 2014 and March 24, 2014. Those who applied within the last date specified in the advertisement, it had to be seen whether they had Rs. 4,00,000/- on February 24, 2014 or not and those who applied after February 24, 2014, whether they had Rs. 4,00,000/- on March 24, 2014 or not. If indeed it were the intention that Rs. 4,00,000/- should have been available as closing balance on the last date for receiving applications only as per the corrigendum, if any, such requirement ought to have been expressed clearly instead of couching ''the said note'' in ambiguous terms. The sentence ought to have been so worded to suggest that Rs. 4,00,000/- should be available as closing balance on the last date for receipt of applications specified in the advertisement, but if any corrigendum were issued, Rs. 4,00,000/- should be available as closing balance on the last date for receipt of applications as specified in the corrigendum and not the original last date. Such intention could also have been advanced by using the conjunction ''and'' instead of ''or''. I, thus, uphold the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate for the petitioner that he has been wronged because of a flawed decision making process of HPCL and its officers.

There is one other aspect, which cannot be overlooked. The requirement of Rs. 4,00,000/- being available as closing balance in a bank/post office savings account of the applicant is intended to provide the HPCL information about his financial solvency at a given point of time, i.e. last date of receipt of applications. The scheme does not insist on Rs. 4,00,000/- being available as closing balance on any date subsequent to the last date for receipt of applications. Obviously, one need not have Rs. 4,00,000/- as closing balance in his account even on the day of field verification, which in the present case was conducted a year having lapsed since the petitioner and the fifth respondent applied. There being no certainty as to when the process of selection would come to an end, if any applicant in dire straits needs money he cannot faulted for withdrawing it from his account after having ensured that Rs. 4,00,000/- was available on February 24, 2014. It has not been argued that there is any mala fide on the part of the petitioner or that he intends to steal a march over his rivals. The basic financial criterion, if it were satisfied as on February 24, 2014, the order rejecting the petitioner''s candidature would be indefensible.

In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed, without costs, directing the HPCL and its officers to treat the petitioner''s application to be ''in order'' if Rs. 4,00,000/- were available in his bank account on February 24, 2014. In the event of the petitioner satisfying all the conditions of eligibility, the HPCL and its officers shall proceed in accordance with law to finalize the process of appointment. Should the petitioner be found to be deficient on any other count warranting his disqualification, he shall be duly informed together with reasons. The fifth respondent, I am afraid, cannot be allowed to reap any benefit arising out of his selection but may sue the HPCL and its officers for damage, if any, suffered by him.

Urgent photostat copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant at an early date.