IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6549 of 2010 PANKAJ KUMAR, S/O SRI AJAY KUMAR, R/O FLAT NO.101, TRIVENI NIWAS, R.K. AVENUE ROAD, RAJENDRANAGAR, P.S. KADAMKUAN, TOWN & DISTRICT-PATNA (BIHAR). Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM ,NEW DELHI. 2. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM ,NEW DELHI. 3. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, G-9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI- 400051(INDIA). 4. THE CHAIRMAN,INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., G-9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI- 400051(INDIA). 5. THE G.M. MARKETING (IOCL), LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR, DAK BUNGLAW CHAWK,PATNA- 800001(BIHAR). 6. THE SENIOR AREA MANAGER, MARKETING DIVISION, EASTERN REGION, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. SHAHI BHAWAN,EXHIBITION ROAD,PATNA (BIHAR). 7. THE SENIOR AREA MANAGER, INDANE REGIONAL OFFICE, SHAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA (BIHAR). 8. THE MEMBERS, SELECTION COMMITTEE, MARKETING DIVISION, EASTERN REGION, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. SHAHI BHAWAN,EXHIBITION ROAD,PATNA (BIHAR). 9. THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, MARKETING DIVISION, EASTERN REGION, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. SHAHI BHAWAN,EXHIBITION ROAD,PATNA (BIHAR). 10. MR. AJAY KUMAR, S/O MR. ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA, R/O ANAND VIHAR, OPPOSITE SEC 6H/48, EAST OF BAHADURPUR, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,KANKARBAGH, P.S- AGAMKUAN, TOWN AND DISTRICT-PATNA-80026 (BIHAR). with CWJC No.9174 of 2010 AJAY KUMAR S/O ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA R/O MOH ANAND VIHAR, OPPOSITE SECTOR-6H/48, EAST OF BAHADURPUR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE KANKARBAGH, P.S.AGAMKUAN, DISTT-PATNA Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM NEW DELHI 2. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM NEW DELHI 3. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN G-8, ALI ZAFAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI-400051 4. THE G.M. MARKETING INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. null 5TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA-800001(BIHAR) 2 5. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (LPG) 5TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAK BANGLOW CHOWK, PATNA-800001(BIHAR) 6. THE SENIOR MANAGER LPG null 5TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN , DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA- 800001(BIHAR) 7. THE COMPLAINT INVESTIGATING OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER (RS), WBSO null LOKMANYA JAI PRAKSH BHAWAN, DAK BANGLOW CHOWK, PATNA-800001(BIHAR) 8. THE SENIOR AREA MANAGER , MARKETING DIVISION , EASTERN REGION , INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. SHAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA(BIHAR) 9. THE SENIOR AREA MANAGER , INDIAN REGIONAL OFFICE SHAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA(BIHAR) 10. THE MANAGER , INDIAN REGIONAL OFFICE SHAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA(BIHAR) 11. THE FIELD INVESTIGATING OFFICER , MARKETING DIVISION , EASTERN REGION INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD SHAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA(BIHAR) 12. PANKAJ KUMAR S/O AJAY KUMAR R/O FLAT NO.101, TRIVENI NIVAS, R.K.AVENUE ROAD, RAJENDRA NAGAR, P.S.KADAMKUAN, DISTT-PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner in : M/s Bindhyachal Singh and Sushil C.W.J.C. NO. 6549/2010 Kumar Sinha, Advocates. For the Petitioner in M/s N. K. Malhotra, Sr.Advocate, C.W.J.C. No. 9174/2010 Radha Mohan Singh, Ramesh Kumar Singh and Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocates. For Respondent-I.O.C.: M/s K. D. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate, Anil Kumar Sinha and Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocates. For Respondent no.10 in M/s N. K. Malhotra, Sr.Advocate, C.W.J.C. No. 6549/2010 Radha Mohan Singh, Ramesh Kumar Singh and Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocates. For Respondent 12 in : M/s Bindhyachal Singh and Sushil C.W.J.C. No.9174/2010 Kumar Sinha, Advocates. -------- 05/ 21.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents in both the cases. 2. C.W.J.C. No. 6549 of 2010 has been filed by Pankaj Kumar challenging the result/list of empanelled candidates for Indane Distributorship dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Area office of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (MD), Patna, for distributorship of LPG for 3 location Jehanabad, Bihar, by which one Ajay Kumar was declared first and Pankaj Kumar was declared second awarding 98.67 marks and 98.33 marks, respectively and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. C.W.J.C. No. 9174 of 2010 has been filed by Ajay Kumar challenging report dated 05.05.2010 issued by the Complaint Investigating Officer and Chief Manager (RS), WBSO, by which he had recommended for cancellation of candidature of Ajay Kumar, which was subsequently approved by Sr. Manager, L.P.G., D.G.M. (L.P.G.) and G.M. (BSO) and, accordingly, candidature of Ajay Kumar was cancelled vide order dated 10.05.2010. 4. From the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the advertisement was published on 19.01.2009 in Hindustan daily by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited jointly inviting applications from eligible candidates belonging to different categories for various places in various districts in the State of Bihar including Jehanabad, which was in the open category for appointment of distributorship of L.P.G. It transpires that several persons including the petitioners of both the writ cases applied, whereafter the result/list of empanelled candidates for Indane distributorship was published on 29.10.2009, in which Ajay Kumar was declared first and Pankaj Kumar was declared second. 5. It further transpires that against the said decision, Pankaj Kumar filed C.W.J.C. No. 6549 of 2010 and also raised objections 4 before the authorities concerned. The said objections were considered and finally the objections were found to be genuine and candidature of Ajay Kumar was cancelled vide order dated 10.05.2010, which has been challenged by him in C.W.J.C. No. 9174 of 2010. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Ajay Kumar submits that his appointment was cancelled only on the ground that on investigation it was found that the I.I.P.M. did not offer Post Graduation Degree; that the I.I.P.M had never sought any kind of statutory recognition from any Government Body; and that the I.I.P.M. , which was not a University, did not offer M.B.A. Degree. He further avers that the educational qualification required for the said appointment had been specifically provided in the Brochure of Indane (L.P.G.) Distributorship in which it has been stated that those candidates, who had Post Graduation in Management, Diploma in Management from Indian Institute of Management, Graduation in Engineering, Graduation in Law, Chartered Accountant, would be awarded 15 maximum marks and others would be granted 12 maximum marks. He further submits that Ajay Kumar was entitled to 15 marks as he had Certificate in Planning and Industrial Entrepreneurship, which was equivalent to Post Graduate Diploma in Management and hence he had the requisite qualification for getting the maximum 15 marks, which was wrongly ignored by the authorities concerned. 7. From a bare perusal of the said Brochure produced by Ajay Kumar, it is quite apparent that the first item of educational qualification 5 was Post Graduation in Management, whereas, the second item was Diploma in Management from Indian Institute of Management. In the said circumstances, the first item cannot be legally presumed to be a Post Graduate Diploma in Management as Diploma is described in the second item and hence in the facts and circumstances of the case the first item has to be a Degree of Post Graduate in Management, which, admittedly, Ajay Kumar did not possess. Furthermore Ajay Kumar also did not possess any Diploma from any Indian Institute of Management, hence he did not also come within the purview of the second item. In the said circumstances, the authorities were quite justified in passing the impugned order dated 10.05.2010. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not see any merit in the claim of Ajay Kumar raised in C.W.J.C. No. 9174 of 2010, which is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. Since the challenge of Pankaj Kumar to the appointment of Ajay Kumar has succeeded before the authorities themselves, his writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6549 of 2010 has become infructuous and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with a liberty to Pankaj Kumar to file an appropriate application before the authorities concerned in the light of the aforesaid order and the prescribed provisions. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )