Varsha Jain vs Indian Oil Corporation and Others

K.K. Trivedi, J.—By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 14.12.2012 said to be issued by respondent No. 4 intimating the petitioner that her application for grant of Indian Oil Corporation Kisan Sewa Kendra Dealership against the advertisement dated 21/22.7.2012 is rejected being incomplete. It is alleged by the petitioner that she has furnished all the relevant documents, affidavit alongwith her application and since on merits the petitioner was bound to be selected, to deny the chance of selection, the respondents have hatched up a novel device by rejecting her application.

At a later stage since the allotment process was done and letter of indent was issued in respect of respondent No. 4, she too was impleaded as a party in the present proceedings. The following reliefs are claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition:--

"(i). This Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records and set aside impugned order dated 14.12.2012 "Annexure P/3" and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process.

(ii) Any other order or orders deemed fit and proper may also be passed in favour of petitioner alongwith cost."

Upon service of notice of the writ petition, respondents have filed their return. It is contended by the respondents that in fact one writ petition was filed in respect of the very same location by one Vandana Paigwar being W.P. No. 13478/2013. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to approach the Grievance Redressal Cell of the Corporation. A complaint was filed by the Vandana Paigwar. After considering the complaint of said Vandana Paigwar, it was found that the merit panel prepared by the authorities of respondents was not correct. Accordingly, the entire panel was cancelled and the matter was remitted back to the authorities for revaluation of those candidates, who were eligible to take part in the selection. No fresh applications were invited.

It was found that on revaluation, one Smt. Ranjana Jain has topped the list and, therefore, the letter of indent was issued in her respect. It is contended that these facts were well within the knowledge of the petitioner but she has not cared to file any complaint before the Grievance Redressal Cell of the Corporation. This being so, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

Further facts have been pointed out by the respondents that in terms of the eligibility selection criteria prescribed under the scheme contained in the brochure of the respondents all applicants are required to submit their applications in prescribed proforma giving the documents and supporting affidavit as prescribed in the said scheme. On verification of the application of the petitioner discrepancy in her affidavit was found and since such discrepancy was not curable, the candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected. That being so, her revaluation was also not possible and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

The respondent No. 4 has also filed the return complaining that though letter of allocation has been issued in her respect and though the same is not challenged in the present proceedings yet the said respondent is not getting the supply because of pendency of the present writ petition.

Huge amount has been spent by her and she is suffering day-to-day monetary loss.

Though a rejoinder is filed by the petitioner but nothing much is said except that in terms of the scheme, opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to remove any such discrepancy. According to the petitioner such discrepancies were not so materially important so as to deny consideration of the petitioner in the matter of selection. In view of this, it is contended that the petitioner would be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The reliefs as claimed in the writ petition have rendered infructuous in view of the fact that only the rejection order of candidature of the petitioner is called in question. Even when the fact was pointed out to the petitioner that some other person has been selected in the revaluation of the merit marks after the decision of Grievance Redressal Cell of the respondent-Corporation, the said person though was impleaded as a party but the order of allotment was not called in question in the present proceedings. The relief of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner cannot be granted in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Anju Khandelwal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., W.P. No. 999/2004, decided on 17.3.2005. The Indore Bench of this Court has held in the said writ petition that the errors committed in furnishing the required information in the application form or enclosures to be appended there with cannot be remedied at a later stage. In the brochure it has been categorically prescribed that along with application every applicant was required to file a declaration on stamp paper. If there are discrepancies in the said declaration the same cannot be removed. After considering all these aspects, the Court has reached to the conclusion that once the application is rejected on account of fatal infirmities in the application submitted by the petitioner, the said infirmities cannot be removed or ignored and such rejection of application cannot be said to be an arbitrary act of the respondent-Corporation.

In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law the prayer as made in the writ petition cannot be granted. Since there is no other prayer made in the writ petition for cancellation of subsequent order of allotment issued in respect of respondent No. 4, even while moulding the relief, this Court cannot grant such relief to the petitioner in the present circumstances when her candidature is found to be rejected properly at the initial state. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim prayer earlier granted shall stand vacated. However, in peculiar circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.