IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 712 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 712 OF 2006 Subhash Shankar Bhoir & 4 ors. ] .. Petitioners Versus 1. Indian Oil Corporation & anr. ] .. Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 719 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 719 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 719 OF 2006 Jaymala Bhushan Gawali. ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. Indian Oil Corporation & anr. ] .. Respondents AND AND AND WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 17 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 17 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 17 OF 2006 Archana Thool. ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. Indian Oil Corporation & Anr. ] .. Respondents Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, senior Advocate with V.P. Sawant for the petitioners. Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr. Chirag Mody i/b RMG Law Associates for the respondent No.1. Mr. A.C. Singh with Mr. Namesh D. Sharma for respondent No.2. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 16TH MARCH, 2006 : 2 : P.C. : . Petitioners, in all the three Petitions, had applied for appointment as dealers for Retail Outlet Dealership issued by the Indian Oil Corporation. It is the case of the petitioners that the dealership, as per the advertisements, were reserved for SC/ST. Some of them were reserved for SC/ST (women). After the selection process was completed, their names appeared at Sr. No.1 in the order of merit. In fact, writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.712 of 2006 was also issued a letter of intent. The respondent thereafter have cancelled the said selection and have issued fresh advertisement. It is contended that there is no difference in the advertisement first issued and the second advertisement as all the successful candidates belong to the SC group in terms of the fresh advertisement. It is further pointed out that the complainant Shri Kamble was one of the contestants and was unsuccessful and in these circumstances, the Corporation ought not to have cancelled the selection done as it in no way prejudices or, in any manner, affects the quota for SC/STs. The action therefore of the Corporation, it is submitted, is arbitrary and : 3 : consequently liable to be quashed and set aside. 2. On the other hand, on behalf of the Corporation it is submitted that in terms of the guidelines issued by the Ministry, the allotment had to be done in terms of 100-Point Roster as contained in the guidelines dated 9th October, 2000. In terms of the guidelines, the reservation provides independently quotas for SCs and STs as also for women amongst the SCs and STs as per the Roster. Though it was Shri Kamble who brought this to their attention, the respondent-Corporation, on receiving the complaint examined the same and finding merit, took a policy decision to cancel the earlier selection as the selection was not in conformity with the guidelines. It is, therefore, submitted that the action of the respondent is not arbitrary, but only to give effect to the guidelines issued by the Ministry. It is also pointed out that incase of Pune and Nagpur Regions where the advertisement was in terms of the guidelines, the selection has not been interfered with and it is only in Mumbai Region, where the advertisement was not in terms of the guidelines, was a policy taken to have a fresh advertisement. No vested right has been created in favour of the petitioners and consequently, this Court : 4 : ought not to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent-Corporation. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. What learned counsel for the petitioners points out to us is that considering the subsequent advertisement, the candidates who were selected in terms of the first advertisement would be eligible for appointment in terms of the second advertisement is merely a fortuitous circumstance. The real question that we have to ask ourselves is whether action of the respondent-Corporation is arbitrary. It is not a case of the petitioners that it is malafide, meaning thereby personal malafides. Once there were guidelines, the respondent-Corporation, which is a public body, had to comply with the guidelines. The purpose of the guidelines and specific reservation is that in the matter of public largesse, all those entitled to would be eligible to apply. In the advertisement which was first issued, the dealership was shown as reserved for both SC/ST. It is possible that some others who were eligible, considering the nature of the advertisement may not have applied. Even otherwise, the Corporation is bound by the guidelines and could not have issued an advertisement contrary to the guidelines. Dealership : 5 : had yet to be issued. No vested rights have been created. In these circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that the policy decision taken by the respondent-Corporation to cancel the first selection and issue fresh advertisement cannot be said to be arbitrary. 4. In the light of that, no interference is called for. Consequently, all the three Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. [F.I. [F.I. [F.I. REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]