Sita vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) And Ors

This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with communication dated 11.4.2019 whereby, the respondent - oil company has informed the petitioner about rejection of her candidature for the purpose of appointment of dealer of a retail outlet for location at village Biramsar, Tehsil Nokha, Distt. Bikaner in Group-I category. The petitioner has also challenged the selection of the respondent No.3 as a dealer of the retail outlet for the above referred location.

Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.12.2018, the petitioner has applied for appointment as a retail outlet dealer for selling petroleum products at village Biramsar, Tehsil Nokha, Distt. Bikaner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, in her application, has declared herself as Group-1 category candidate. Since the petitioner was the only candidate of Group-1 category, she was informed by the respondent - oil company vide letter dated 15.1.2019 that as she is the sole candidate in Group-1 category for the above referred location, there is no requirement of conducting draw of lots, however, the petitioner was asked to submit requisite documents for conducting land evaluation and verification of her credentials as mentioned in the application form.

During the course of land evaluation, the respondent - oil company has found that the land offered by the petitioner for the purpose of establishing the retail outlet is offered by her grand father-in-law, who does not fall within the definition of family member, therefore, the candidature of the petitioner for Group-1 category is liable to be rejected.

The respondent - oil company is claiming that the grand father-in-law of a candidate will not fall within the definition of a family member as specified in the guidelines for selection of dealers.

After rejection of petitioner's candidature from Group-1 category, she was asked to participate in the selection process of Group-3 candidates and pursuant to that, the petitioner participated in the selection process, however, in the draw of lots, the respondent No.3 was selected for appointment as a dealer of the retail outlet for the above referred location. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent - oil company has illegally rejected the candidature of the petitioner as Group-1 category candidate. It is argued that the grand father-in-law of the petitioner, who has offered the land for the purpose of establishing retail outlet is very well fall within the definition of family member and, therefore, action of the respondents of rejecting candidature of the petitioner as Group-1 category is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the meaning of family member cannot be restricted to certain individuals and it has to give a wide interpretation, which definitely includes grand father-in-law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner thus prayed that this writ petition may be allowed and the impugned communication dated 11.4.2019 be set aside; the selection of the respondent No.3 as dealer of the retail outlet for location at village Biramsar, Tehsil Nodha, Distt. Bikaner be also set side and the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner as a dealer for the above referred location.

Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG appearing for the respondent - oil company has justified the rejection of the petitioner as Group-1 category candidate. It is submitted that as per the guidelines for selection of dealers issued by the respondent - oil company on 24.11.2018, the persons included as family members have specified and in that, grand father-in-law is not included.

Mr. Shah has further argued that as a matter of fact, after rejection of the petitioner's candidature as Group-1 category candidate, she was asked to participate in the selection process along with other Group-3 candidates and she voluntarily participated in the same but when she was not selected in the draw of lots, this writ petition has been filed at a belated stage.

Mr. Shah has argued that once the petitioner has participated voluntarily in the selection process along with other Group-3 category candidates after rejection of her candidature as Group-1 category candidate, she cannot turn back and challenge her rejection as Group-1 category candidate. Mr. Shah has thus prayed that this writ petition may be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

In the guidelines issued by the respondent - oil company for selection of dealers for regular & rural retail outlets, it is clearly provided that the land owned by the family members will also be considered as belonging to the applicant, who has applied under Group-1 category candidate, however, it is also provided that such members or relatives of the applicant will be treated as family members. The relevant portion of the guidelines is reproduced hereunder :-

"The land owned by the family member(s) will also be considered as belonging to the applicant (Group-1) subject to producing the consent letter in the form of affidavit (Appendix lll A) from the concerned family member(s).

For this purpose family members would comprise of:-

(i) Self

(ii) Spouse

(iii) Father/Mother including Step Father/Step Mother

(iv) Brother/Sister/Step Brother/Step Sister

(v) Son/Daughter/Step Son/Step Daughter

(vi) Son-in-law/Daughter-in-law

(vii) Parents-in-law

(viii) Grand Parents (both maternal & paternal)"

From perusal of the above, it is clear that in the guidelines, the relatives treated as family members have been specified and the grand father-in-law does not come in it.

Moreover, after rejection of the candidature of the petitioner as Group-1 category candidate, she was asked to participate in the selection process along with other Group-3 category candidates and she voluntarily participated in that process. It is to be noted that the petitioner's candidature as Group-1 category candidate was rejected on 11.4.2019 and, thereafter, she voluntarily participated in the selection process along with other Group-3 category candidates in November, 2019 and when the respondent No.3 was selected as a dealer of the retail outlet for the above referred location, she has filed this writ petition. This Court is of the opinion that on this count also, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court as she has accepted rejection of her candidature of Group-1 category candidate and voluntarily participated in the selection process along with other Group-3 category candidates.

In view of the above discussion, no case for interference by this Court is made out. Hence, the writ petition, being bereft of force, is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition is also dismissed.