Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8588 of 2013 ====================================================== Anil Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri Sheshnath Choudhary Resident Of Village - Lala Chhapra, P.S. Adapur, District - East Champaran At Motihari Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Bihar, Patna 2. The Chief Area Manager, Patna Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1st. Floor, Shashi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna - 1 .... .... Petitioner/s .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. M. N. Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mohit Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Tripurari Nath Ambastha, Advocate For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 4 13-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (for short ‘the IOCL’). 2. In this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the sustainability/legality of the order dated 28.3.2013 (Annexure-5) issued by the Chief Area Manager of IOCL, whereby the petitioner was held ineligible for grant/award of Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak(RGGLV) at Auriya, Jamunbhar, Lala Chhapra in the
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.8588 of 2013 (4) dt.13-09-2013 2/7 district of East Champaran, which was reserved for open category. 3. The IOCL published an advertisement dated 26.2.2012 (Annexure-1) inviting application(s) for award of distributorship under RGGLV at several locations. The location in question figured at serial No. 75 of the said advertisement. The petitioner finding himself eligible became one of the applicants. He submitted his application on 30.3.2012. After preliminary verification of the application(s), the respondent-IOCL by communication dated 14.9.2012 (Annexure-2) informed the petitioner that he was found ineligible on account of mis-match of the land owner in respect of the land offered by him. By the same communication the petitioner was called upon to submit his representation on or before 8.10.2012. The petitioner filed his explanation/reply on 3.10.2012 (Annexure-3) enclosing therewith the relevant documents to clarify the objection of the respondent- IOCL. Having accepted the explanation submitted by the petitioner the respondent by the communication dated 15.11.2012 (Annexure-4) called upon the petitioner to appear on 1.12.2012 for draw of lots, a mechanism provided under relevant guidelines/brochure governing the selection process. The petitioner appeared and participated in the draw of lots. On being selected thereat, the respondents carried out field verification of Patna High Court CWJC No.8588 of 2013 (4) dt.13-09-2013 3/7 credentials of the selected candidate (petitioner). Having done so, the respondents by communication dated 28.3.2013 (Annexure-5) apprised the petitioner about rejection of his candidature on the grounds mentioned therein. Being aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.
Legal Reasoning
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that while carrying out field verification of credential(s), the petitioner was not associated with the same. The respondent- IOCL ought to have given him an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish further documents which were not found sustainable as per the provisions of the brochure and the conditions stipulated in the notice inviting application. Having not done so, the candidature of the petitioner was illegally rejected. 5. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the IOCL, on the contrary, submitted that considering the documents filed in support of the application marks on the parameters set out in the brochure are awarded to the candidates treating those documents to be true. In the preliminary verification of the application filed by the petitioner, it was found that the owner of the land provided by the petitioner was not tallying with the supporting records furnished by the petitioner. Accordingly, he was called upon to clarify the same. The petitioner clarified the Patna High Court CWJC No.8588 of 2013 (4) dt.13-09-2013 4/7 aforesaid fact which was accepted by the respondents. The draw of lots was thereafter carried out and the petitioner was selected. As per Clause 13 of the brochure, a field verification of credential is thereafter carried out by the senior officer(s) of the IOCL to verify the credentials and the documents filed by the petitioner in support of the application. In course of such field verification, it was found that the petitioner had disclosed his income to the tune of Rs. 2.00,000/-. In support thereof a certificate of the income issued by the Circle Officer, Adapur, was furnished. Drawing attention of the Court to the application filed by the petitioner (Annexure-R/1 to the counter affidavit), it has been submitted that the petitioner claimed annual income of Rs. 2 lacs in the last financial year. He also claimed agricultural land under relevant para/clause to demonstrate the assests/property of the family which was quantified at Rs. 21,04,000/-. For income and assets/property, separate marks are awarded. Initially, having found that the petitioner had disclosed his income at Rs.2 lacs, he was awarded full 10 marks under the said head. Similarly, for other assets and properties of the family, the petitioner was awarded full 5 marks considering the disclosure made in the said application. During the field verification of the credential, it was found that the petitioner had enclosed income certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Patna High Court CWJC No.8588 of 2013 (4) dt.13-09-2013 5/7 Adapur wherein it was stated that the petitioner’s income is Rs.50,000/- from agricultural sources and Rs.1,50,000/- from the profession. Referring to Clause 10(1) of the application, it has been submitted that for income from profession, the petitioner was required to furnish certificate(s) of income from the Chartered Accountant, but he failed to produce any document with regard to his income from profession as per condition of the brochure. For showing income from agriculture, a certificate from the Tehsilder/Revenue authority was acceptable. Considering the documents filed in support of his income so disclosed in the application, an income to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from agricultural sources was only accepted as per the condition(s) of the brochure. As such, petitioner has to shed at least 5 marks out of 10 marks awarded under the said head. 6. Similarly, in course of such field verification, it was noticed that petitioner claimed to be married. The agricultural lands shown by him in the application was found recorded in the name of his great grand-father. Referring to the definition of the family unit, it has been submitted that the lands recorded in the name of the great grand-father cannot be treated to be the lands of the petitioner as the grandfather would not constitute family unit. The respondents, in such circumstances, found that the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.8588 of 2013 (4) dt.13-09-2013 6/7 was entitled to award of only 05 marks under that head. Referring to the award of marks (appearing at page-1 of the Annexure-R/1), it has been submitted that initially the petitioner was awarded 85 marks but after field verification he was not held entitled thereto. In the category the petitioner belonged, the candidate must secure 80% marks. The petitioner after losing marks under these two categories/head fell below 80% marks. In these circumstances, the impugned order was passed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, has submitted that petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to make good the deficiencies by filing documents. 8. In the matter like this the respondents are obliged to set out clearly the parameters on which the candidate(s) shall be evaluated. An applicant is then required to file the complete documents in support of his application. If the petitioner has failed to furnish all relevant documents in support of his claim then the respondents are not legally obliged to grant the applicant another opportunity. This would result in arbitrariness in the action of the respondent-IOCL which is a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 9. The matter can be viewed from different angle also. There is no allegation of malafide against the respondent IOCL or Patna High Court CWJC No.8588 of 2013 (4) dt.13-09-2013 7/7 any of its officials. The respondents have acted objectively in accord with the procedure spelt out in the brochure as well as the notice inviting application. The documents/papers submitted along with the application are only required to be considered. This Court, therefore, does not find any illegality in the order impugned inviting interference. 10. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. 11. No costs. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) sudip/-