IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10757 of 2011 Asha Devi wife of Late Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Lal Parsa, P.S. Sugauli, District-West Champaran. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mumbai. 3. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Bihar State Office, Loknayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna. 4. The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Eastern Region, Indane Area Office, Patna, Shashi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna. ….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate. For respondent nos.2, 3 & 4: Mr. Kali Das Chatterji, Senior Advocate With Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate ---------- 05/ 06.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- i. For setting aside item Serial No.1 of Advertisement dated 11.06.2011 as published in Hindustan Hindi News Paper, issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited for allotment of out let of LPG Dealership at Raxaul, District East Champaran, which has been advertised for GP [Government Personnel] category, as same is not in accordance with law in view of Clause 4[a] of the Brochure [Guideline for selection] of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and further in view of Order dated 20.05.2010 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in L.P.A.no.704 of 2010. ii. For a further direction to the respondents to re-issue the advertisement for the said location serial no.1, reserving the same for the widow of defence personnel only, in term of order dated 20.05.2010 passed in L.P.A. No.704 of 2010. iii. For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be deemed entitled too. - 2 - 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was an earlier advertisement dated 17.10.2007 (Annexure-7) issued by the respondents for LPG Dealership/Distributorship for several places, including the location in question, namely Raxaul within the district of East Champaran under the policy decision of the Govt. of India of 2007 with respect to which Brochure was published in June, 2007 for selection of such dealer/distributor. 4. In the aforesaid Brochure 50% was for open category (0), whereas 25% was reserved for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST); 8% for Defence Personnel (DC); 2% for Freedom Fighter (FF); 8% for Paramilitary/Police/Govt. Personnel (PMP); 2% for Outstanding Sports Persons (OSP); and 5% for Physically Handicapped Personnel (PH). As per the advertisement, the location ‘Raxaul’ was reserved for Defence Personnel (DC) which as per the Brochure of 2007 meant for personnel of armed forces (viz. Army, Navy, Air force) covering widows/ dependents of those who died in war, war disabled/disabled on duty, widows/ dependent of those members of Armed Forces who died in harness due to attributable causes and disabled in peace due to attributable causes. There is no dispute that the petitioner came under the said category and applied and was selected on 06.12.2008. 5. Against the aforesaid selection of the petitioner, another candidate Rani Devi filed CWJC No.4871 of 2009 which was dismissed by a Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 16.02.2010 (Annexure-2). The said order was challenged by the - 3 - said Rani Devi before a Division Bench of this court in LPA No.704 of 2010 which was allowed on 20.05.2010 (Annexure-3) setting aside the order of a Single Judge and quashing the grant of dealership to Asha Devi, who was respondent no.6 of that case, as not sustainable in law directing the authorities to advertise afresh and proceed for fresh interview and selection in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner filed Civil Review No.145 of 2010 for review of the said order, but the said petition was dismissed by the said Division Bench of this court on 18.08.2010 (Annexure-4), observing that no aspersion on her conduct imputing motive to her has been assigned in the order passed in LPA and if she applies in response to any fresh advertisement, needless to state that the law enjoins that her application has to be considered on its own merit in accordance with law without being influenced by the said order. Against the said order, the petitioner filed SLP before the Supreme Court which was dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also avers that much after the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.08.2010, fresh advertisement was published by the respondents on 11.06.2011 (Annexure-5) for the remaining two places, namely Raxaul and Gaya as the said places were not filled up due to the aforesaid reasons. However, in the said advertisement, location ‘Raxaul’ was reserved for ‘GP’ candidates, which according to Brochure of 2011 (Annexure-9) included defence personnel which - 4 - meant personnel of armed forces (viz. Army, Navy, Air Force) covering widows/dependents of those who died in war, war disabled/disabled on duty, widows/dependent of those members of Armed forces who died in harness due to attributable causes and disabled in peace due to attributable causes and also included Government and Public Sector Personnel which meant personnel serving in different Departments of Central/State Governments and Public Sector Undertakings of Central/State Government who were incapacitated or disabled while performing their duties and in case of death, while performing duties, their widows/dependents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that fresh advertisement of 2011 was an extended advertisement of the earlier advertisement of 2007 and if the respondents delayed in issuing the advertisement after the LPA order, the petitioner cannot be allowed to be affected. He further stated that as per the specific order of the Division Bench passed in LPA, fresh advertisement was to be issued as per 2007 policy hence that policy would be applicable herein irrespective of the cut off date provided in the 2011 Brochure, as it is a special case not a general case in which Brochure of 2011 would be applicable. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that vacancies now advertised are for the same places which were subject of earlier advertisement and hence the same rule must be applicable to it and the petitioner, being a widow of defence - 5 - personnel who died in harness, was applicant in the category of ‘DC’ as per the earlier advertisement, but now it is not provided in the advertisement of 2011 as it is for ‘GP' which included other persons also. Hence, he submits that the impugned fresh advertisement dated 11.06.2011 (Annexure-5) is not sustainable in law, nor is in accordance with the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 20.05.2010 passed in LPA No.704 of 2010 and hence it is fit to be quashed. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that they had not denied the petitioner her right to apply and she is fully entitled to apply and her application will be considered in accordance with law applicable to the said advertisement. He further states that the Brochure of 2007 included reserve category of ‘DC’ and the said category is also included in the Brochure of 2011 as clause 7.2. ( c) which had been prepared according to new policy of the Government of India of 2011 and according to Brochure of 2011 (Annexure-A) itself it is applicable to all locations advertised or re-advertised after 1st of April, 2011. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the respondents are not against any individual or any class or against the petitioner and they only have to act according to the policy decision of the Government of India and the directions of this court. He further submits that delay was not caused due to any act of the respondents, rather it was due to the petitioner herself as - 6 - she challenged the LPA order before the Supreme Court and even after rejection of SLP she filed a review petition before the Apex Court. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents also states that the policy of the Govt. of India of 2011 is not under challenge and it is applicable to the instant matter also as the Division Bench of this Court also while deciding the Letters Patent Appeal directed the respondents to proceed in accordance with law and hence the respondents are proceeding in accordance with law which is applicable at the relevant time, namely issuance of the fresh advertisement, as per the policy and Brochure of 2011. Hence, he submits that the impugned advertisement is not against any provisions of law or directions of the High Court, rather it has been issued as per the specific directions of the Division Bench of this court and the new policy decision of the Government of India. 13. Considering the entire averments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record it is not in dispute that earlier advertisement was published on 17.10.2007 (Annexure-7) for grant of LPG dealership/distributorship at various places and as per the policy of 2007 applicable at that time, the location in question, namely Raxaul was fixed for ‘DC’ category, whereas the other locations were reserved for Freedom Fighter (FF) and Paramilitary/Police/Govt. Personnel (PMP). It is also not in dispute that the other locations, including the location reserved for FF and PMP was filled up by the authorities and accordingly the - 7 - applicants for other categories were duly appointed and only the applicants for Defence Personnel (DC) could not be appointed due to the aforesaid litigations. 14. It is also not in dispute that now in Brochure of 2011 (Annexure-9) a new category, named Central/State Govt. and Central/State PSU Employees (GP) has been created clubbing together the old categories of Govt. & PSU (PMP) and Defence Personnel (DC) and fresh advertisement has been issued in 2011 for the said GP category. Hence there is obviously a chance that the Government and Public Sector Personnel (Old PMP) will again apply and can be selected and hence they will get double benefits as the applicants for that category had already been selected and appointed as per the original advertisement at locations reserved for them, whereas the applicants for the category reserved for defence personnel (DC) can be adversely affected. In the said circumstances, the applicants of Freedom Fighter (FF) and the Government and Public Sector Personnel (PMP) cannot be legally given a chance to contest with the applicants of the Defence Personnel (DC) category in these special circumstances. 15. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this case has to be treated as a special case which cannot be considered as per the general principle provided in the Brochure of 2011. Hence this writ petition is allowed and the impugned advertisement dated 11.06.2011 (Annexure-5) as published in Hindustan daily Hindi Newspaper issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for - 8 - allotment of the LPG dealership is hereby quashed so far it relates to location ‘Raxaul’ within the district of East Champaran and the respondents-authorities are directed to issue a fresh advertisement with respect to the said location ‘Raxaul’ especially for the reserved category of Defence Personnel of armed forces (viz Army, Navy, Air Force) covering widows/ dependents of those who died in war, war disabled/disabled on duty, widows/dependent of those members of Armed Forces who died in harness due to attributable causes and disabled in peace due to attributable causes, expeditiously so that the petitioner and others of the said category, which was left out in the earlier selection due to the pendency of the writ petition and letters patent appeal, may be able to avail the opportunity and apply. Thereafter, the selection process will continue in accordance with law and completed expeditiously. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)