Letters Patent Appeal No. 1194 of 2011 · Patna High Court · 2011
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1194 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9174 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No. 5857 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 6654 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1194 of 2011 ====================================================== Ajay Kumar, S/O Ashwini Kumar Sinha, resident of Mohalla - Anand Vihar, Opposite Sector-6H/48, East of Bhadurpur Telephone Exchange, Kankarbagh Police Station-Agamkuan, Distt.- Patna .... .... Petitioner/ Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India represented through the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi 3. The Indian Oil Corporation through its Chairman G-9, Ali Yavar Jang Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 4. The G.M. Marketing, Indian Oil Corporation, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Banglow Chowk, Patna-800001 (Bihar) 5. The Deputy General Manager (LPG) 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bangalow Chowk, Patna-800001 (Bihar) 6. The Senior Manager (LPG) 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bangalow Chowk, Patna-800001 (Bihar) 7. The Complaint Investigating Officer and Chief Manager (RS) WBSO, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bangalow Chowk, Patna-800001 (Bihar) 8. The Senior Area Manager, Marketing Division Eastern Region, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar) 9. The Senior Area Manager, Indane Regional Office, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar) 10. The Manager, Indian Region Office, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar) 11. The Field Investigating Officer, Marketing Division, Eastern Region, 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court LPA No.1194 of 2011 (6) dt.07-08-2013 2 / 7 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar) 12. Pankaj Kumar S/O Ajay Kumar R/O Flat No. 101, Triveni Nivas, R.K. Avenue Road, Rajendra Nagar, P.S.-Kadamkuan, Distt.-Patna .... .... Respondents/Respondents
Legal Reasoning
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. P.L.Jaiswal, Advocate. For the Respondent Nos. 3-11:Mr. K.D.Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 12: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate. Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6 07-08-2013 Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 21st June 2011 made by the learned single Judge insofar as CWJC No. 9174 of 2010 is dismissed, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Pursuant to the advertisement published on 19th January 2009, the appellant and the respondent no. 12, one Pankaj Kumar, applied for LPG distributorship of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) at Jehanabad. After due selection process, the result was declared on 29th October 2009. The appellant was empanelled at Sl. No. 1 and the respondent no. 12 was empanelled at Sl. No. 2. Feeling aggrieved, on 27th November 2009, the respondent no. 12 made a complaint in respect of the empanelment 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1194 of 2011 (6) dt.07-08-2013 3 / 7 of the appellant at Sl. No. 1. He alleged that (1) experience certificate submitted by Shri Ajay Kumar, the 1st empanelled candidate, is false and fabricated. He does not have any experience about LPG distributorship and he has never worked as manager or supervisor in any LPG Unit, (2) the MBA Certificate as submitted by Shri Ajay Kumar in support of educational qualification is totally false, (3) Income Tax certificate submitted by Shri Ajay Kumar is false, (4) marks awarded in capacity to provide finance to Shri Ajay Kumar is not justified because he has not maintained fund in saving account up to minimum three months, (5) marks awarded in capability to provide land to Shri Ajay Kumar is not justified because he has no land (against title) in Jehanabad district. The said complaint was investigated. Pursuant to the said investigation, the Senior Manager (RS), BSO, under his report dated 5th March 2010, opined that the aforesaid allegations were not substantiated. He recommended that the Corporation may proceed with the first empanelled candidate (the appellant) for LPG distributorship at Jehanabad. The Respondent No. 12 did not rest satisfied. He pursued the matter further with further materials. He also approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 6549 of 2010 to challenge the empanelment of the appellant as Sl. No. 1 and to challenge the above referred report dated 5th March 2010. The said petition was entertained by this Court. The learned single Judge, under order dated 16th April 2010, directed the Corporation not to take further steps in furtherance of the selection of the present appellant. After further investigation on the materials received 4 Patna High Court LPA No.1194 of 2011 (6) dt.07-08-2013 4 / 7 from the appellant, the Corporation, under report dated 5th May 2010, opined that the 15 marks allocated to the appellant under the head educational qualification was erroneous and that he was entitled to 12 marks for the educational qualification. The said revision of marks pushed the appellant at the bottom of the selection panel and the respondent no. 12 gained the first position. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 9174 of 2010. He challenged the aforementioned investigation report dated 5th May 2010 and for a direction to allot the LPG distributorship to the appellant. The learned single Judge has
Decision
dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, this Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Nirmal Kumar has appeared for the appellant. He has relied upon the Brochure on Selection of INDANE (LPG) Distributors-Applicable for Advertisements from January 2009 published by the Corporation. He has particularly relied upon the prescription of allocation of marks on various parameters contained in Paragraph 14.2. He has submitted that the appellant possesses qualification of Post Graduate certificate in Planning and Industrial Entrepreneurship equivalent to the Post Graduate Diploma in Management awarded by the Indian Institute of Planning and Management, New Delhi. For the said qualification, the appellant was entitled to 15 marks under the head educational qualification. The appellant was rightly allocated 15 marks for the educational qualification. The appellant is thus deprived of his legitimate right to the LPG distributorship. Mr. Nirmal Kumar has also relied upon Paragraph 21 of the Brochure. He has submitted that Paragraph 21.1 expressly provides that a representation/complaint shall be entertained only if it is received 5 Patna High Court LPA No.1194 of 2011 (6) dt.07-08-2013 5 / 7 by the office concerned within a month from the date of declaration of result. He has submitted that the complaint made by the respondent no. 12 after expiry of 30 days of the declaration of result has been entertained by the Corporation. The action of the Corporation is, therefore, arbitrary and is not sustainable. Learned counsel Mr. K.D.Chatterji has appeared for the Corporation. He has contested the Appeal. The above mentioned Paragraph 14 of the Brochure provides, inter alia, for allocation of marks for educational Max Marks 15 in Evaluation on Based the information given in application. qualification. Parameter Level Description Educational qualification (as on of date application) applicable individual applicants including partnership only. to I II III i. Post Graduation Management ii. Diploma Management Indian Management Institute iii. Graduation Engineering in from of in iv. Graduation in Law v. Chartered Accountant i. Post Graduation in any other field not covered in para I above ii. Graduation in any other field not covered in para I above iii. Cost Accountant iv. Company Secretary v. Diploma in Engineering Matriculation Sub Total maximum marks 12 10 15 The appellant claims to have post graduate diploma in management. Admittedly, the appellant does not possess a Diploma in Management from Indian Institute of Management. The certificate in Planning and Industrial Entrepreneurship awarded to the appellant says that it is equivalent to Post Graduate Diploma in Management. Even if, we accept that the said qualification is equivalent to Post Graduate Diploma in 6 Patna High Court LPA No.1194 of 2011 (6) dt.07-08-2013 6 / 7 Management, the said qualification having not been obtained from the Indian Institute of Management would not entitle the appellant to 15 marks allocated for such qualification. Further, as investigation report suggests, the Indian Institute of Planning and Management, New Delhi from where the appellant has secured the aforesaid certificate is not a recognized Institution nor it is Post Graduate course. Thus, the appellant cannot be said to be falling in level- I. The appellant, therefore, cannot claim allocation of 15 marks for the educational qualification. As to Paragraph-21.1 of the Brochure, there is no gainsaying that the Corporation did make it clear that the complaints received 30 days after the date of declaration of the result would not be entertained. The result was declared on 29th October 2009. The respondent no. 12 appears to have made complaint on 27th November 2009 i.e. within 30 days of the date of the declaration of the result. True, initially the said complaint was rejected. However, the respondent no. 12 pursued the matter for reconsideration. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Corporation cannot be said to have entertained the complaint made by the respondent no. 12 contrary to Paragraph 21.1 of the Brochure. It is apparent that the appellant does not possess any of the qualifications of level I category. Initial allocation of 15 marks to the appellant for educational qualification was evidently erroneous. Pursuant to the investigation report dated 5th May 2010, the Corporation has rightly allocated 12 marks to the appellant for educational qualification. If on account of such reduction in allocated marks, the appellant has lost his position on the selection panel, he cannot claim the LPG distributorship as of right. 7 Patna High Court LPA No.1194 of 2011 (6) dt.07-08-2013 7 / 7 For the aforesaid reason, we see no merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Sujit/-