1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1299 of 2011 and M.P.MD)No.1 of 2011 1.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Regional Manager, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. 2.Regional Manager (Indane), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. 3.Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Madurai Divisional Office, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. ... Appellants/Respondents Vs. R.Ranjith ... Respondent/Petitioner Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.10.2011, made in W.P. (MD)No.11147 of 2011. For Appellant : Mr.K.Muraleedharan JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] The appellants have come forward with this writ appeal challenging the order of the writ court, dated 20.10.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.11147 of 2011, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein setting aside the impugned order of the 3rd https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 appellant rejecting the application of the respondent submitted for the relief of awarding LPG Distributorship and consequently directing the appellants herein to consider the application of the respondent and call him for interview, if he is otherwise eligible for being called for interview. 2.Mr.K.Muraleedharan, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, would submit that the writ court has not taken note of the fact that the respondent has not submitted his application, by filing an affidavit in the prescribed form. It is contended that in the Annexure-'A', to be enclosed along with the application, it is clearly stated that the respondent has to state that he had passed matric/SSC or equivalent examination from recognised board in a particular year, but the said factor was not mentioned in the affidavit filed by the respondent and, therefore, the appellants have rightly rejected the application submitted by the respondent. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants would further submit that if the respondent is allowed to participate inspite of his not submitting the affidavit in the prescribed form, the same would be a precedent for other candidates and as such the writ court's order is liable to be set aside. 3.We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and also perused the order passed by the writ court as well as the order of the 3rd respondent impugned in the writ petition. 4.At the outset, we are constrained to state that the respondent, as rightly pointed out by the writ court, has not suppressed any material factor or burked any information. As rightly pointed out by the writ court, the prescribed Format, as in Annexure- A, itself is not in clear form and the same is misleading and the writ court also extracted relevant portion from Annexure-A, which is as follows: "Strike off whatever is not applicable. (@Delete these if not applicable)" It is also highlighted by the writ court that there is absolutely no material omission committed by the respondent herein. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to see whether the respondent is qualified and eligible for seeking the relief of LPG distributorship. It is pertinent to note that as far as the educational qualification is concerned, the prescribed format is to the effect that the person who is applying for distributorship has to state that whether he has passed matric or SSC or equivalent examination. As far as the respondent is concerned, he is having such a qualification and apart from that, he is also a postgraduate and enclosed all the certificates, namely SSLC Certificate and Degree and Postgraduate Degree Certificates and such being the position, it cannot be stated that he has burked any information or there is any material omission in his application as observed by the writ court. 5.The writ court has also taken note of the admitted fact that interview is yet to be commenced and it is going to be commenced only during the 2nd week of November, 2011. Learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 counsel for the appellants would submit that interview has already commenced for certain areas and insofar as the area for which the respondent has applied, the interview is to be held on 24.11.2011. Such being the position, we are of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the appellants in the event of calling the respondent for the interview, if he is otherwise eligible and qualified as observed by the writ court. 6.In view of the same, we are unable to see any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the writ court, warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Regional Manager, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. 2.The Regional Manager (Indane), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. 3.The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Madurai Divisional Office, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. +1cc to Mr.Issac Mohanlal, Advocate, Sr.No.39783 gb ssk/16.11.2011 /5c -3p/- Judgment IN W.A.(MD)No.1299/2011 and MP(MD)No.1/2011 Dated:14.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/