HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24885 of 2005 Dated: 09.09.2010 Between: P. Srinivas Rao. …..Petitioner And The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai, rep. by its Chairman & others. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24885 of 2005 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the selection of respondent No.4 as a retail outlet dealer to sell Petroleum Products of Indian Oil Corporation at Chennur in Adilabad District. Necessary facts in brief, are as under : The Indian Oil Corporation issued notification in newspapers on 16th December 2003, calling for applications from eligible candidates for award of its retail outlet dealership at Chennur village and Mandal of Adilabad District, under the physically handicapped category. As per the eligibility criteria notified, the candidate should be of 21 years of age as on the last date of receipt of applications. The notification was dated 16th December 2003 and the last date for receipt of applications was 19th January 2004. To select the candidates, interviews were conducted on 8th of September 2004 and the 4th respondent was found to be most meritorious candidate. Accordingly, the Selection Committee empanelled respondent No.4 in the 1st position. As per the notified conditions, respondent No.4 produced a certificate, dated 23rd December 2003, issued by the Grampanchayat, Chennur, in proof of his age, indicating his date of birth as 11th February 1982. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, the 4th respondent was appointed as a dealer. In this writ petition, the selection of respondent No.4 by respondents 1 to 3 is questioned mainly on the ground that he was under-aged, as he was below 21 years of age, and hence, he was not eligible for selection. It is the case of the petitioner that in the school records, the date of birth of respondent No.4 was shown as 11th February 1985, as such, he was below 21 years as on the last date of receipt of applications i.e. 19th January 2004. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, and a separate counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, while narrating the facts leading to selection of respondent No.4, it is stated that respondent No.4 has produced a certificate, dated 23rd December 2003, issued by the Grampanchayat, Chennur, indicating his date of birth as 11th February 1982, as such, he fulfilled the criteria of 21 years as per the notification. Counter further states that an affidavit is also filed by the 4th respondent, stating that he was born on 11th February 1982 in the Government hospital, Chennur, and owing to his premature birth, he suffered physical disability, as such, in school records, his date of birth was shown as 11.02.1985, which, in fact, was not correct. It is also stated in the counter that when there was a representation by the petitioner, disputing the age of respondent No.4, he has also produced a certificate from the Civil Surgeon, Government hospital, Adilabad, stating that his date of birth was 11th February 1982. It is further stated that the Indian Oil Corporation also obtained a legal opinion with regard to further action to be taken in the matter and accordingly, respondent No.4 was asked to furnish the proof of age, basing on the medical examination by a Government recognized medical practitioner. Accordingly, a certificate, dated 10th March 2005, issued by the Professor, Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Mushirabad, Secunderabad, certifying his age as 23 years as on 10th March 2005. Thus, it is the case of respondents that as the 4th respondent fulfilled the notified criteria of 21 years, he was selected and there is no illegality in such selection. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that his date of birth is 11th February 1982 and in view of the physical disability on account of premature birth, his date of birth was mentioned as 11th February 1985 in the school records. It is further stated that pursuant to his selection, he has already entered into a lease agreement with respondents 1 to 3 and also obtained necessary permission for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purpose, apart from obtaining permission from fire, Police and emergency departments, and that works have also been completed for installation of pump to start the retail outlet. Counter further states that he has incurred huge expenditure for opening the retail outlet and that he borrowed funds from relatives and well-wishers, to start the business. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, appearing for respondent No.4. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed a copy of the application format, prescribed by the Indian Oil Corporation, for applying for retail outlet dealership. As per the notification, it is not in dispute that one must complete 21 years of age as on the last date of receipt of applications i.e. on 19th January 2004. In the application format, with regard to proof of age, respondents have prescribed for production of attested copy of either Matriculation or Secondary School Certificate indicating date of birth, or an identity card issued by the Election Commission or an affidavit of the candidate in proof of age. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the correct age will be reflected in the school records, in which, the date of birth of respondent No.4 is recorded as 11th February 1985, and in that view of the matter, no other document should have been considered, but from a perusal of the conditions notified in the application form itself, it is clear that one need not necessarily file only the matriculation or secondary school certificate in proof of age, but an identity card issued by the Election Commission or an affidavit can also be filed in proof of age. In this case, it is to be noted that along with the application, respondent No.4 has enclosed a copy of the certificate issued by the Grampanchayat, certifying his date of birth to be 11th February 1982. He has also filed a certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Chennur, in which hospital he was born, certifying that his date of birth is 11th February 1982. It is also to be noticed that when there was a representation by the petitioner, disputing the age of respondent No.4, the Indian Oil Corporation has demanded the petitioner to get his age certified by a competent Doctor from the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. Accordingly, respondent No.4 was examined by a Professor of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Mushirabad, Secunderabad on 10th of March 2005, who has certified the age of respondent No.4 as 23 years as on 10th of March 2005. The various certificates issued by the Grampanchayat, the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Government hospital, Chennur, in which hospital he was born and the opinion rendered by the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Hospital, clearly demonstrate that respondent No.4 was more than 21 years of age as on 19th January 2004, which was the last date for receipt of applications. While it is true that his date of birth was recorded as 11th February 1985 in the school records, but in view of the explanation offered by the petitioner, and certification made by various authorities, confirming that his date of birth was 11th February 1982, and in the absence of conditions notified with regard to proof of age, respondents 1 to 3 have correctly taken into account such certificates and came to the conclusion that respondent No.4 has fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In that view of the matter, and further, in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 that he has taken several steps pursuant to his selection by converting his agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose, and also obtained permissions from various Statutory authorities and made huge investments for the purpose of establishing the retail outlet, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the selection of respondent No.4, at this point of time. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th September 2010. ajr