IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.307 of 2010 1. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. 2. CHIEF DIVISIONAL MANAGER (MARKETING DIVISION) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PATNA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BUNGALOW ROAD, PATNA 3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER EASTERN REGION, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., BEGUSARAI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BEGUSARAI Versus 1. SUNITA KUMARI W/O SURENDRA PRASAD PASWAN R/O VILLAGE AND POST - MURADPUR, VIA ROASARO, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 2. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, NEW DELHI ----------- For the appellants:- Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha and Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocates. For respondent no.1:- Mr. Mukul Sinha, Advocate. ------------ 5. 10.02.2011. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of judicature at Patna, and raises a grievance with respect to the judgment dated 15.4.2009, passed by a learned Single judge of this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 7186 of 2008 (Sunita Kumari Vs The Union of India and others), whereby the writ petition preferred by respondent no.1 herein has been allowed, and the appellants herein have been directed to consider her case for allotment of the dealership in question in her favour as she was at serial no.2, of the empanelled candidates. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for 2 disposal of this L.P.A. may be indicated. An advertisement was published in a daily newspaper inviting applications, for grant of Super Kerosene Oil Dealership (in short „SKO‟) at Warisnagar in the district of Samastipur. It was reserved for a woman candidate of the Scheduled Caste category. After completion of the selection process, the following persons figured in the panel of selected candidates in order of merit published on 24.7.2001:- (i) Smt. Neelam Kumari (ii) Smt. Sunita Kumari (iii) Kumari Anju Choudhary. 3. It was an all India advertisement for selection of dealers through out the country. Letter of intent was issued in favour of Smt. Neelam Kumari. The selection all over India led to a national furore and it was alleged that a large number of persons were granted dealership on account of gross favouritism. The matter reached the Supreme Court which directed constitution of a two- member committee comprising of Mr Justice S.C.Agrawal, a former judge of the Supreme Court, and Mr. Justice P.K.Bahri, a former judge of the Delhi High Court. The Committee noted in its report that altogether 3 417 candidates had been referred to it for its consideration, but it had taken up 409 cases because of repetition of names etc. The Committee in its report found that 297 cases out of 409 selected candidates were the result of gross favouritism. Therefore, it recommended for cancellation of their selection. The whole matter including the report of the Committee was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Swarup Mishra Vs. Union of India and others, (2008) 15 SCC 243, and it fully agreed with the report and finally concluded that the letters of intent in favour of 297 candidates be cancelled. The letters of intent issued in favour of balanced 112 candidates was not interfered with. Smt. Neelam Kumari was amongst 297 persons. In our view, the entire process culminating in the judgment of the Supreme court was to separate the blemished from the unblemished. We are, therefore, of the view that the Supreme Court did not discard the whole of the selection process, but only cancelled the letters of allotment of the favoured candidates. 4. Respondent no.1 herein (the writ petitioner) was no.2 in the panel. She expected the letter of intent to be 4 issued in her favour, but did not receive the same. In view of inaction of the appellants, she preferred the aforesaid C.W.J.C.No. 7186 of 2008, which has been allowed by the learned Single judge, and the appellants herein have been directed to issue the letter of intent in her favour as per the prescribed procedure. 5. While assailing the validity of the order, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the whole of the selection process was an unmitigated disaster. Therefore, it would be unsafe to direct the appellants to issue the letter of intent in favour of respondent no.1, in a situation where her case was not specifically considered either by the Committee or by the Supreme Court. He relies on the order of a learned Single judge of this Court, indeed one of us (S.P.Singh,J), passed in C.W.J.C.No. 9632 of 2009 (Shrimati Mamta Singh Vs. The Union of India & others), disposed of on 13.8.2009, wherein observations have been made that it is safer to call for a fresh advertisement. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has supported the order of the learned Single judge and submits that a panel prepared so that, if the candidate at serial no. 1 for one reason or the other is not available, it 5 should be given to person at serial no.2, or if necessary, to serial no.3. He relies on a judgment rendered in the case of Anil Kumar Singh Vs. the Chairman Dealers Selection Board, reported in 2004 (1) PLJR SC 30. 7. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the selection process was a national scandal and led to intense enquiry by the Supreme Court. It attached such importance to the matter that it constituted a committee to examine the factual aspects of the matter by a committee presided over by a former Judge of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court entirely agreed with the findings of the report and came to the conclusion that out of 409 selected candidates considered by the Committee, 297 candidates were products of gross favouritism and, therefore, directed for cancellation of their letters of intent. The Supreme Court did not find fault with the selection of the remaining 112 candidates and did not interfere with their selection. Smt. Neelam Kumari was amongst 297 candidates. 8. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case 6 of Anil Kumar Singh Vs. The Chairman Dealers Selection Board, reported in 2004(1) PLJR 30. That was also a case for selection of a similar dealership. The letter of intent was issued to the candidate at serial no.1 in the panel. Candidate no.2 in the panel preferred the writ petition which was allowed by a Single judge of the Court by one of us (S.K.Katriar,J), wherein it was held that no.1 candidate had incurred disqualification and the letter of intent in her favour was directed to be cancelled. The consequential order to the effect that the candidate at serial no.2, the writ petitioner, had to be issued the letter of intent. The vanquished candidate preferred appeal before this Court which was allowed. The appellant had incurred a second disqualification during the pendency of the proceedings as a result of which the Division Bench held that he was out of the reckoning. However, the Division Bench further held that it would be safer to discard the whole of the selection process and consequently disagreed with the order of the writ court granting licence in favour of the writ petitioner. He preferred appeal before the Supreme Court which was allowed by the aforesaid judgment. The Supreme Court 7 held as follows:- “ This case is more in consonance with the judgment of this Court dated 23rd August, 1995 in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP ( C) No. 15191 of 1994. In that case on identical facts a three judges bench has held that once the person to whom the allotment was made has become ineligible, the distributorship must be awarded to the person who is 2nd in the merit list.” 9. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, we have no manner of doubt that the letter of intent must be issued in favour of respondent no.1 herein. Indeed there are passing observations in the Committee‟s report in view of respondent no.1. In that view of the matter, we are entirely agree with the order of the learned Single judge. Appellants are directed to issue the letter of intent in favour of respondent no.1 as per the prescribed procedure. 10. The appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.K.Katriar,J). Shashi (S.P.Singh,J).