CWP No. 11351 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 11351 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.8.2008 Jagdeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Saurav Khurana, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr. S.C. Kapoor, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 4th June, 2008 (Annexure P-4) vide which he has been declared ineligible for allotment of Indane distributorship of Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Village Guruharsahai, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur. The petitioner has been held ineligible on the ground that he did not submit proof of his age along with his application. The petitioner has thus sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order Annexure P-4. He further prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his application for allotment of the said distributorship. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that an advertisement was published in the Tribune dated 18th September, 2006 CWP No. 11351 of 2008 2 regarding allotment of Indane distributorship of the respondent Company in the open category. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner applied for the said distributorship in open category. His application dated 13th October, 2006 is annexed as Annexure P-1 to the petition. However, the petitioner did not receive any communication with regard to his application for a period of two years. It is only on 25th June, 2008 that the petitioner came to know through some other applicants that interviews for the allotment of the said distributorship were to be held on 26th and 27th June, 2008. On inquiry made from the office of the respondents, he came to know that he had been found ineligible for being considered for allotment of the distributorship on the ground that he had not submitted proof of his age i.e. date of birth certificate along with the application. The petitioner has, thus, impugned the order (Annexure P-4) whereby he was found ineligible. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 & 2 wherein it has been stated that as per column 1 (f) of the application format published in “The Tribune” dated 18th September, 2006, it was clearly mentioned that attested copy of Matriculation or Secondary School Certificate intimating the date of birth is to be enclosed with the application. The petitioner submitted his matriculation certificate on 21st September, 2006, issued by the Punjab School Education Board but the same did not indicate the date of birth of the petitioner. The respondents further stated that as per column 19 (c) of the advertisement, it was made clear that application received without accompanying valid documents, CWP No. 11351 of 2008 3 would not be considered. No rejoinder to the reply submitted by the respondents has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents was totally illegal and arbitrary as he was not given any opportunity of hearing before rejecting his candidature for the said distributorship. He has inter alia contended that depending upon the facts of the case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and no rigid principle is applicable for every infraction of the rules. He has relied upon a judgment reported as Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE 2004 (4) Recent Services Judgments 685. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the condition mentioned in the advertisement was very clear and there was no scope for relaxation in the same. The petitioner had to submit his application complete in all respects, which he failed to do. The counsel further contended that since a material document i.e. proof of age did not accompany the application of the petitioner, he had rightly been found ineligible for consideration of the distributorship. The counsel further contended that no opportunity of hearing is required in such cases as the application itself being incomplete, no right had accrued in favour of the petitioner. We have perused the judgment cited by counsel for the CWP No. 11351 of 2008 4 petitioner in the case of Dolly Chhanda (supra). However, the same relates to an admission matter wherein a candidate was seeking admission to the State Medical College and was not able to produce the correct certificate at the first stage of counselling. At the time of second counselling she produced a correct certificate in respect of her permanent disability. In the mean time, the candidates securing less marks than her, had been admitted. In view of this hardship, the apex court was pleased to grant admission to the petitioner in the said case. However, the apex court reiterated that the general rule is that while applying for any course, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary and that there can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. Thus, in our opinion, the said judgment does not help the case of the petitioner. Firstly, the said judgment pertains to an admission matter, secondly it only gave some relaxation to a handicapped candidate in peculiar facts of the said case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this court pertaining to the allotment of the distributorship of the same company i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the respondent herein. In the said case, the petitioner had not attached the residence proof from the competent CWP No. 11351 of 2008 5 government officer. This court was pleased to hold that right of the petitioner had emanated from the advertisement whereby the application for the distributorship were invited. Since the petitioner had not been able to furnish the residence proof along with the application, he was rightly declared ineligible as he has not been able to meet the requirement of advertisement. We feel that ratio of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case also. It is apparent that the petitioner failed to submit proof of age i.e. his date of birth certificate along with the application though this was the requirement of the advertisement. The advertisement was unambiguous in this regard. Column 1 (f) of the application format clearly specified that matriculation or secondary school certificate indicating date of birth was to be enclosed with the application. However, the certificate annexed by the petitioner along with the application form did not indicate his date of birth. The advertisement also made it clear in column 19 (c) that application received without valid documents would not be considered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the present case in writ jurisdiction. The application of the petitioner for the distributorship in question has been rightly rejected by the respondents as the application of the petitioner was not complete in all respects, as proof of age was not CWP No. 11351 of 2008 6 submitted along with the same. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE August 19, 2008 'rajpal'