THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO. 3084 OF 2011 Dt: 1-03-2011 Between: S.Sandeepa, D/o. S.Sudarshan Reddy …..Petitioner And Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (A Government of India Enterprises), Registered office 17, Jamsjedji Tata Road, Mumbai, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director & others. …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3084 of 2011 ORDER: The 1st respondent issued notification inviting application for selection of a dealer to run petroleum outlet in Nizamabad Town on N.H.16. The petitioner, 3rd respondent and several others submitted applications. After processing the same, the Selection Committee placed the petitioner at serial No.1 and the 3rd respondent at serial No.3. The 3rd respondent submitted a representation to the Grievances Redressal Committee (for short, the Redressal Committee) alleging that she was not assigned marks, which, she otherwise deserved. It appears that Redressal Committee directed that the interviews be conducted afresh. Accordingly, call letters were issued to all the candidates including the petitioner. Ultimately, interview was held on 18.8.2010. The Selection Committee placed the 3rd respondent at serial No.1 and petitioner at serial No.2. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent stating that the second interview ought not to have been held and that she was not assigned marks properly in the second interview. On consideration of the same, the Redressal Committee rejected the representation of the same and it was communicated to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 25.10.2010. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings. Heard Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Thumu Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri J.Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3. In the interview that was conducted on 29.8.2009, the petitioner was placed in the first position in the order of merit before the letter of intent was issued to her. The 1st respondent arranged for another interview that was held on the basis of a representation submitted by the 3rd respondent to the Redressal Committee, which was held on 18.8.2010. In this interview, rankings were changed and the petitioner was place at serial No.2, whereas, the 3rd respondent was placed at serial No.1. The objection raised by the petitioner for conducting the interview for second time, cannot be considered. The reason is that she could have challenged the same before participating in it. It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in second interview without raising any objection. She cannot turn around down when the result thereof was not in favour of her. The second ground urged by the petitioner is that the Redressal Committee did not give her an opportunity, before rejecting the representation. The Condition 19 of the guidelines issued by the 1st respondent mandates that if the Grievances Committee decides to order investigation into a complaint, it shall decide the matter finally after giving opportunity to the concerned. It is not in dispute that the Redressal Committee has ordered investigation into the representation made by the petitioner, but did not give any opportunity to the petitioner, before rejecting the same. This is a clear violation of condition No.19. When a provision, having the force of law, mandates that the affected party must be heard, the authority cannot ignore the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Redressal Committee for fresh consideration by giving opportunity to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Dt: 01.03.2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO. 3084 OF 2011 DATE: 01.03.2011