G) IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) 6 WRIT PETITIONfCl N0. ?^2J /2010. PETITIONER: Ku.Nain Ajgalle, daughter of Shri J.S.Ajgalle, aged about 37 years, residence of village Post Malkharoda, Police Stadon Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents ^' .<t- M^ /y^ \^y^ ^w^/ ^y ./ 1. Indian Oil Corporation, Through Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Bhavan, Rajeev Gandhi Mard (V.I.P. Road), Post Ravigram Telibandha, Raipur, Chhatdsgarh. Pin 492006. 2. Thakur Ram Banjare, residence of vUlage Post Matkharoda, PoUce Station Malkharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhatdsgarh ^•^^ ^ /' f^ SL^SSH^. h -it t » WR1T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ov /iF ^° HIGHCOURT OF CHI'tAT'riSGARll A'l B1LASPUR WMT PETITION (C) No. 3223 of2010 PETITIONER : Ku. Nain Ajgalle. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Indian Oil Corporation & Others. WR[T_PETmON_UNDERART!CLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFJNDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri CJ.K.Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 19th day of October, 2010) By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus to quash the selection process, whereby the respondent No. 2 was found selected for allotment ofdistributorship ofLiquid Petroleum Gas (for shon 'the LI'G'} under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak scheme (for short 'rte RGGLV'}, for the location at Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa, and secondly, a direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner and award the distributorship under RGGLV for the location at Malkharoda. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.10.2009 (Annexure P/3), published in the daily newspaper 'Haribhoomi', the petitioner alongwith others and respondent No. 2, made an application Ibr allotment o( the distributorship under RGGLV. In total, according to leamed counsel for the respondent No. 1,16 applications were received out of which 2 applications, one ol' the petitioner and second of the respondent No. 2, were found suitablc and eligible for %. ?f/0 consideration. As provided under clause 12.2 of the brochure (Annexure P/5), a draw of lot was made and the respondent No. 2 was found selected. Accordingly. the distributorship under RGGLV was allotted to the respondent No. 2. Needless to state that the minimuin qualifying marks for being eligible to participate in draw oflots was 80% marks. The petitioner obtained 100 out of 100 marks and the respondent No. 2 obtained 92 marks (Annexure R71-1). Contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the requirement ofplot for installalion oFGodown as provided in the brochure (Annexure P/5) is that the land should be of a minimum dimension of 20 mts. X 24 mts. It should be freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road or private road ofthe applicant connecting to the public road) and should be plain, in one contiguous plot, free from live overhead power transmission or telephone lines. Canals/Drainage, Nallahs should not be passing through the plot. Shri Rao further submits that the respondent No. 2 does not fulfill the above criteria as the plot available with the respondent No. 2 is not plain one. On the basis of a complaint made by the petitioner against the respondent No. 2 on which, an enquiry was made. The Enquiry Officer, in his report (Annexure R/l-5) dated 20.07.2010, has found as under: "We have jointly inspected the Malhkaroda location for FVC on dl. 16.06.2010 and investigated for complain. We would like to elaborate each point, details are as under: 1. All the documents and information submitted by the applicant Shri Tahkur Ram Banjare is found t? correct and he has not concealed any information to the Corporation. 2. There is no electrical overhead transmission line passing through or adjoining to the plot. Plot is on the opposite side of pond and there is no passage for water to the plot. 3. There is no BSNL Telephone wire passing through the plot. 4. Only one house is present right side of the plot and rest ofthe three side is open. Plot is not surrounded with thick population 5. Approach road is found all weather motorable and only few LT line is crossing the road, which would not be hurdle for passing stack truck. 6. We have measured the land accompanied with Patwari and found measurement ofplot is 25 meter X 74 meter which is more than the required land for proposed godown. 7. It has been verified with the land record and found that the proposed land is pertaining to the applicant Shri Tahkur Ram Banjare and not clubbing with any other family members. 8. All the documents and information submitted by the applicant is found correct. 9. We have obtained the Caste Certificate from Tehsildar, same has been submitted, however, this location vvas published for the open category, which has not concerned with the caste. 10. At present there is no mela and Plot area is found completely empty and dry. The approach road is all weather motorable. 11. The plot is opposite side of pond and there was no symptom ofwater leakage. The plot level is found low, whichi s assured to be filled by the selected applicant, so there is no such objection/ discrepancies were found for the dis-selection of the candidate for the Malldiaroda market. " 5. It is clearly stated in the report that though the plot level was low, however it was assured by the respondent No. 2 to be Hlled up. No further discrepancy was found as complained by the petitioner. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 does not have the basic facility i.e. a plot for construction of ;odown was not plain, as required, does not merit acceptance. The word 'plain' does not .mean plain like a card board. Other ,contention ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plot ^ is near the residential locality ofthe area and there is an electricity transmission line. In the report, it is clearly stated that the electricity transmission is over the road which would not be a hurdle for passing stack truck. Thus, these contentions are also rejected. Even otherwise, the question of legality and validity of the selection process cannot be examined at this stage. 6. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner participated in the selection process knowing fully well the terms and conditions as specified in brochure. The petitioner, al'ter being unsuccessful, made a complaint also which was examined properiy by the concemed officer. In the report submitted by the enquiry officer, except that there was a low level plot, other objections have been rejected. The petitioner cannot be permitted to question legality and validity ofthe selection ofrespondent No. 2 at this stage as it is well settled principle of law that it is not open to the unsuccessful applicant to challenge the selection process after participating in the same. 7. It is well settled that a candidate who has appeared in the selection process without demur cannot question the selection process after having failed in the selection. 8. The Supreme Court, in Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of Uttaranchal and others , observed as under: "7. It is not disputed that the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in fhe advertisement itself as BPE or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter '(200S)4SCC171 49) 9. alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules. 8. In Madan Lal v. State of J&K this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the members concemed ofthe Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contestinj respondents concemed, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Thcreforc, only bccause they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a. candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair .or the Selection Commitlee was not properly constituted. 9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done. 10. In a recentjudgment in Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. ofA.P., SCR at p. 516, this Court has succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process." Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and in view of the above, thc writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 10. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ainit