SMT. MOUMITA PODDAR v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD & Anr.

2.3 The facts and circumstances of the instant case are such that the approach adopted by the Divisio.n Bench, in taking note of the subsequent events, was appropriate and legally permissible. The clumsy handling of the entire selection process by respondent No. 1 ought not to result in disqualification of respondent No.2 who '"was perhaps not properly g\,lided; There are no allegations made that respondent No. 2 has either manipulated the selection or that any undue favour has G been shown to her by the Selection Committee. The fact that candidates at Nos. 2 and 3 of the panel have not challenged the selection and grant of dealership to respondent No.2. The appellant could also not get any relief, not being in the panel of selected candidates. In H F 910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A view of the facts that the dealership has been operating for more than five years, it is stated to be one of the best outlet in the State; the entire infrastructure has been made available with the combined efforts of respondents No. 1 and 2; closure of the dealership, at this juncture, B would result in disastrous consequences to respondent No. 2. Therefore, keeping in view the over-all public· interest, the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the selection made in favour of respondent No. 2 is declined.[Para 36) c [940-B-H; 941-A-B] V. Purushotham Rao vs. Union of India and Ors. (2001) 10 sec 305 - distinguished.