Saroj Kanwar @APPELLANT@Hash Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Heard.

Facts in nutshell are that the petitioner applied for grant of a retail outlet dealership in furtherance of an advertisement issued by the HPCL in the

Open Women category at the location “near Chadi within 3 Kms. either side from Village Chandi Bus Stand on S.H. No.19 in Jodhpur District,

Rajasthanâ€. The petitioner was successful in the interview held by the selection committee and was placed at serial No.3 having secured 75.4 marks.

One Smt. Seema W/o Ganpat Ram was also amongst the three candidates selected for the retail outlet and she stood first in merit. However, as per

the petitioner, she has foregone her claim for award of dealership because of successful allotment of another location.

Second ranked candidate in the list was Smt. Radha Joshi who was initially awarded 77.5 marks but later on, four of her marks were deducted and

she could finally secured only 73.5 marks and thus dropped below the petitioner in ranking. The aforesaid Smt. Radha Joshi preferred a writ petition

No.6144/2013 challenging the decision of the respondents in deducting her marks. The said writ petition was rejected by this Court by order dated

05.05.2014. It is stated that the said order was never challenged and has attained finality. The petitioner thus claims that she remains the only qualified

and selected candidate for award of the questioned dealership, and thus, the respondents be directed to issue the LOI in favour of the petitioner for the

location she applied for.

Shri Sunil Beniwal, learned counsel representing the respondents, though formally opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s

counsel, but, he candidly conceded that with the exclusion of other two selected candidates, the petitioner has a right to stake a claim for award of the

dealership in question. However, he drew the Court’s attention to the amendment made in the guidelines for selection of the retail outlet dealership

by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas on 23.06.2014 which reads as below:-

“I am directed to say that the matter regarding the process of allotment of Retail Outlet (RO) dealership/LPG distributorship has been examined in

the Ministry. OMCs are directed to cancel all cases of Ros/LPG distributorship allotments in the cases where interviews (including original or re-

scheduled or arising out of established complaints) are pending as on date of issue of this letter. OMCs are advised that all such locations may be

taken up afresh as per extant policy under new system of “draw of lots†by undertaking fresh process of selection.

                 (Emphasis supplied)â€​

Shri Beniwal submits that since the matter relating to the award of questioned retail outlet was pending as on the date of issuance of the above letter

issued by the Government of India, manifestly, the process itself has become redundant and now, a fresh selection process has to be held under new

system of “draw of lotsâ€​.

Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the above mentioned amendment

in the guidelines, this Court is not in the least convinced by Shri Beniwal’s argument that the selection in question has become redundant. It may

be stated that while entertaining the writ petition, this Court had clearly directed that the allotment process shall remain subject to the decision of the

instant writ petition. Manifestly, the letter dated 23.06.2014 which is relied upon by Shri Beniwal refers to the cases of allotment wherein, interviews

were pending at the end of oil marketing companies as on the date of the issuance of the letter. However, manifestly, in the instant case, the process

of interview was completed long before the amendment referred to supra. Thus, this amendment in guidelines cannot be construed as a hurdle in

conclusion of the allotment process which has virtually reached to the final stage. Otherwise also, since a stay passed by the Court is operating in

relation to the allotment process in question, the crystallised rights of the parties cannot be negated by the subsequent amendment in the guidelines and

the process itself cannot be allowed to be nullified on the strength thereof.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith and not

later than two months from today, issue the LOI in favour of the petitioner of the retail outlet in question at the location mentioned above as per law.

Stay application is disposed of.

No order as to costs.