1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8564 OF 2009 Suresh s/o Uttamrao Gutte - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The Union of India and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.MV Ghatge,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India/ Respondent No.1. Mr.VG Gangapurwala, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 17th December, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner had applied for dealership of retail outlet advertised by the Indian Oil Corporation. The advertisement was issued on 21.4.2009. An application was submitted by the petitioner on 15.5.2009 and the interviews for the appointment of dealers were held on 24.11.2009. 2 3) Along with the application, the petitioner had filed a xerox copy of the Disability Certificate dated 22.10.2003. In the meanwhile, the petitioner could secure a fresh Disability Certificate dated 9.9.2009. The petitioner appeared before the authority on the date of interview along with the fresh original Certificates. As the petitioner could not produce the original of the Disability Certificate dated 22.10.2003, the petitioner was refused to be interviewed. This very action of the respondents is under challenge. 4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as the petitioner was informed that for getting the Disability Certificate, he should surrender the original of the Disability Certificate obtained by him in the year 2003 and secure fresh one, which he did. However, the Respondents/authorities insisted the petitioner for the original document, which was the part of the application form submitted by the petitioner and on that count, as the petitioner was unable to produce the original, the petitioner was disqualified. It was further submitted by the Counsel that under the Rules, the petitioner could not have been disqualified. 5) Learned Counsel Shri V.G.Gangapurwala 3 appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation, submitted that the interview call letter itself makes it clear that a candidate shall have to appear for the interview along with the originals of the documents so enclosed with the application form as stipulated in the application form and non-production of those original documents would render disqualification. The Counsel further submitted that the selection process is already completed and the respondent no.4 is selected and is standing at serial no.1, though the counsel submitted that the Letter of Intent is not yet issued. The Counsel for the Oil Corporation has even referred to the Rules of Selection. 6) There is no dispute on the point that the original Disability Certificate dated 22.10.2003, issued in favour of the petitioner, a xerox copy of which was the part of the application form filed by the petitioner, was not available with the petitioner. The petitioner's explanation now is that as he had obtained the fresh Disability Certificate under the latest norms prescribed by the State Government, the original certificate was surrendered to the authorities. 7) The Indian Oil Corporation disqualified the petitioner strictly in terms of the Rules and 4 the requirements set out under the relevant procedure. 8) In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution, no interference is warranted. The writ petition stands dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp8564.09