IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4288 of 2010 Nupur Jha, W/O Shri Bhagwan Jha, R/O Mohalla - Kabraghat, P.O. - Lalbagh, P.S. - L.N.M. University Campus, Distt-Darbhanga……………………………..Petitioner. Versus 1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna through its General Manager. 2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division) Eastern Region, Indance Area Office ,Shahi Bhawan ,Ist Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna through Sr.Area Manager. 3. Senior Area Manager, Patna Indance Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division) Shahi Bhawan, Ist Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna. 4. Smt. Sangeeta Jha W/O Sri Naveen Jha @ Naveen Kr.Jha, R/O Makranda, P.O.& P.S.-Manigachhi,Distt-Darbhanga. ….Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Kali Das Chatterji, Sr. Advocate with M/s Anil Kumar Sinha and Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocates. For the intervener : Mr. Abbas Haider, Advocate. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN O R D E R 06/ 29.09.2011 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (i) Issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection of respondent no.4 for L.P.G. Distributorship at Manigachhi District-Darbhanga, Category-OP(W) State of Bihar vide list of empanelled candidates dated 15.01.2009 on the basis of false and concocted documents submitted by respondent no.4 and by under marking the candidature of petitioner. (ii) Issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the official respondents to make the fresh selection process for Indane Distributorship at Manigachhi Darbhanga in accordance with the terms and conditions as mentioned in the Advertisement as well as in “Brochure” issued for selection of L.P.G. Distributors and thereby to appoint petitioner as Indane Distributor. - 2 - (iii) Issuance of an appropriate direction to respondents 1 to 3 to perform their duties as mentioned under item no.12 of Advertisement and under clause/point no.21.2 and 21.3 of the „Brochure‟ and to dispose of the complaint of petitioner in the terms of point no.22 of the Brochure in accordance with law and take appropriate steps as provided under point no.22.4.2 of the Brochure. (iv) Issuance of an appropriate holding and declaration that since the informations furnished by respondent no.4 are apparently false, she is not entitled to be appointed as a dealer and therefore, list of empanelled candidates including respondent no.4 be kept in abeyance as Distributorship has neither been commissioned nor distributorship agreement has been executed and if distributorship has been commissioned, it is fit to be quashed. (v) Any other relief or reliefs be granted to petitioner to which she is found to be entitled to in accordance with law. 2. It is not in dispute that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as „the Corporation‟ for the sake of brevity) published an advertisement in the daily newspaper “Hindustan” dated 17.10.2007 inviting tenders for selection and appointment of L.P.G. Distributor at various places within the State of Bihar including the location in question, namely Manigachhi within the district of Darbhanga. In response to the said advertisement several applicants filed their tenders including the petitioner, who filed her tender with required papers on 20.11.2007. Thereafter interview letter was issued on 26.12.2008 in accordance with which the petitioner was interviewed on 15.01.2009 and other candidates also were interviewed and the result was declared on the same date i.e. 15.01.2009 in which Sangeeta Jha secured highest marks 93.17, whereas Manju Sinha was second having secured 88.13 marks and Wahida Rahmani was third getting 87.50 marks which was total of marks obtained under different heads. In the said list the petitioner was placed on the 9th position having secured only 72.10 marks. - 3 - 3. On the basis of the aforesaid result, the documents produced by Sangeeta Jha were considered which were not found satisfactory and hence her candidature was cancelled. Thereafter the documents produced by Manju Sinha were considered and when even her documents were not found to be satisfactory her candidature also was cancelled. In the said circumstances, Wahida Rahmani who had obtained 3rd highest total marks was selected by the authorities of the Corporation for L.P.G. Distributorship at Manigachhi. 4. The petitioner challenged the said actions of the respondents authorities and filed her objection/complaint on 13.02.2009 but that has not been disposed of as per the claim of the petitioner. Hence in this writ petition the petitioner has raised several points with respect to her aforesaid grievances. 5. The first point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to Clause 21.2 of the Brochure of the Corporation for selection of L.P.G. Distributorship (hereinafter referred to as „the Brochure‟ for the sake of brevity) and also according to Clause 12.2 of the aforementioned advertisement such objection must be disposed of within three months and till the disposal of such objections, Letter Of Intent should not be issued, but in the instant case every step has been taken by the authorities without disposing of petitioner‟s objection even after the petitioner sent notice to the authorities through her counsel on 09.07.2009. 6. The second and third points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner were that the selection process was not proper, rather it was partial in favour of the selected candidate and that the documents of the petitioner were not properly marked otherwise she would have obtained much higher marks and would have been at serial no.1 because out of the total of 35 marks - 4 - (25+10) for documents, the petitioner was given only 25 marks (18+7) as is clear from the list dated 15.01.2009. 7. The fourth and fifth points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner were that the candidature of the applicants at serial nos.1 and 2, namely Sangeeta Jha and Manju Sinha were rightly cancelled as their documents were not satisfactory and that the candidature of Wahida Rahmani who was at serial no.3 should have been also cancelled on the same ground as the land offered by her belonged to Umar Farooque Rahmani and Khalid Saifulla Rahmani who had obtained licence for running Coal Depot and kerosene agency on the land in question and hence the said candidate was legally not expected to run her dealership on the land offered. 8. The sixth and seventh points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner were that there were several illegalities which had been detailed by the petitioner in her objection for which an enquiry was a must to verify the facts and if they were found correct, the selection of the third candidate was clearly illegal and hence fresh selection process was required as per the Brochure after cancelling the selection list dated 15.01.2009 in which there were three vacant columns with respect to the names, but marks were allotted in the said columns which clearly showed the illegality. 9. Lastly learned counsel for the respondents argued that according to Clause 21.3 of the Brochure and 12.4 of the Advertisement unless such objection is decided Letter Of Intent, if issued, has to be kept in abeyance and hence the issuance of Letter Of Intent in favour of third candidate is clearly illegal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and stated that the entire case of the - 5 - petitioner was absolutely false and frivolous and in any view of the matter she cannot be appointed as marks were rightly given to her and even if her claim with regard to the marks given to her under the head “Land and Infrastructure” was enhanced to maximum her total marks would be enhanced from 72 to 82 and even then she will be at serial no.5. It is also stated that the effort of the petitioner is merely to scuttle the entire process of selection which has already come to an end. 11. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and the materials produced by them, it is quite apparent that the petitioner having secured only 72.10 total marks in the list of empanelled candidates, she was 9th in the list and hence if she was trying to challenge the entire selection process, she should have impleaded at least eight empanelled candidates above her in the writ petition, but it transpires that the petitioner had impleaded only Sangeeta Jha who had secured the highest total marks of 93.17 but her candidature had already been rejected which was challenged by her in this court vide C.W.J.C. No.8931 of 2010 which has already been dismissed on 15.03.2011. 12. It is also apparent from the documents produced by the respondents that the candidate securing second position, namely Manju Sinha did not challenge the cancellation of her candidature by the Corporation and hence after the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition filed by the first empanelled candidate, the candidate securing third highest total marks, namely Wahida Rahmani was selected and Letter Of Intent had been awarded to her by the Corporation on 20.05.2011 which was in accordance with the provisions of the Brochure and the Advertisement, because if the candidature of the persons securing higher marks is cancelled, the candidate securing the - 6 - next highest marks shall be selected. 13. However, the said selection and Letter Of Intent awarded to the said candidate on 20.05.2011 has not been challenged by the petitioner either in any other writ petition or even in the instant writ petition, although the petitioner was fully aware of the said order, a copy of which has already been supplied to the petitioner in the instant writ petition, hence on this ground alone this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. In the aforesaid situation it was also necessary for the petitioner to implead the said Wahida Rahmani as a party respondent in the instant case challenging her selection and the Letter Of Intent granted to her by the Corporation, but it would be interesting to note that the petitioner not only failed to implead the said candidate as a party respondent to this writ petition, but also contested tooth and nail I.A. No.5357 of 2011 which was filed by the said candidate Wahida Rahmani in the instant writ petition for being impleaded and the petitioner being dominus litus got it rejected by this court vide order dated 08.09.2011. 14. So far the claim of the petitioner about the documents of title with respect to land offered by the said candidate is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents has been able to show that the said candidate had produced all the relevant papers including the deeds, revenue receipts, land possession certificate and No Objection Certificate with respect to the land offered by her which were also tested during field verification and hence having been satisfied with the said documents and verifications, she was selected. In the said circumstances the question of title which is sought to be raised by the petitioner is prima-facie frivolous and on that ground this writ petition cannot be allowed. 15. So far the marks obtained by the petitioner as shown in the - 7 - list of empanelled candidate dated 15.01.2009 is concerned, it is quite apparent that admittedly the deed produced by the petitioner was registered with Notary Public and was not a registered document of ownership, as was required under the law and the clauses of the Brochure. In the said circumstances the petitioner was definitely not entitled for the maximum marks of 35 (25+10) under the head “Land and Infrastructure” and the authorities were generous enough to grant her 25 marks (18+7) on that count. Furthermore, as per the said list it is quite apparent that even if the maximum of 35 marks were given to the petitioner on the said count, her total would have been only 82 marks placing her on sixth position i.e. much below the third candidate. 16. So far the objection of the petitioner with respect to the blank columns in the list of empanelled candidates dated 15.01.2009 is concerned, it is quite apparent that serial no.29 was for two candidates jointly and similar was the case with columns no.30 and 31 and the joint candidature having been allowed in the provisions, the said columns no.29, 30 and 31 included joint names of two candidates each, which were applicable in the vacant columns also. Hence, there appears to be no illegality in keeping three columns of name vacant as it was clearly meant for the joint names mentioned just above the vacant columns. Perhaps realising the inherent frivolity in the said point the petitioner had not even raised the said point in the pleadings of her writ petition or in her objection filed before the authorities concerned. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances mentioned above in their entirety it is quite apparent that the objections raised by the petitioner before the respondents which were reiterated before this court by the petitioner are absolutely frivolous, misconceived and baseless and it clearly showed the - 8 - attitude and intent of the petitioner to stall the entire selection process with some nefarious design which would have led the Corporation to huge loss. Hence the objection of petitioner being ab-initio illegal there was no occasion for the Corporation to stall the process for the said reason. 18. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the selection process nor does it find any defect in any action taken by the respondents authorities of the Corporation in this regard. Hence there is no merit in this writ petition at all which is accordingly dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)