IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13167 of 2007 RAVI SHEKHAR SINGH SON OF DR. RAVINDER SINGH RESIDNET OF MIG 72, CHANAKYAPURI COLONY, KATARI HILL ROAD, GAYA, P.S. RAMPUR DISTRICT GAYA AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF B.201, RAMRAJ APARTMENT, BRAHAMRAJ ROAD SHEKHPURA, PATNA -14. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, MARKETING DIVISION, EASTERN REGION, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BIHR STATE OFFICE, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BAHWAN, 5TH FLOOR, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, P.S. KOTWALI DISTRICT PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, VIGILANCE, E.R. INDIAN OIL BHAWAN, 2, GARIYA HAT ROAD, DHAKUNIYA, KOLKATA -8. 4. AREA MANAGER, MARKETING DIVISION, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, EASTERN REGION, INDANE AREA OFFIE, SHAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE CHIEF L.P.G. MANAGER, MARKETING DIVISON, EASTERN REGION, BIHAR STATE OFFICE, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA. 6. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (BIHAR AND JHARKHAND) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED , LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA. with CWJC No.3654 of 2005 SUBODH KUMAR SONOF SRI MATHURA PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANPUR MALLAH TOLI, P.S. BUNIADGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NDW DELHI. - 2 - 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BIHAR STATE OFFICE, PATNA. 3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (MARKETING DIVISION), EASTERN REGION, INDANE AREA OFFICE, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (BIHR & JHARKHAND) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, PATNA. 5. SRI R. D. SINGH SON OF NOT KNOWN, L.P.G. SALES OFFICER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, GAYA DISTRICT GAYA. ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra. For the Union of India :- Mr. S.M. Iqbal Hasan Rahmani & Mr. Raj Kishore Singh. ---- 5 31/03/2010 Both these writ applications are heard and disposed of by this common order as the origin of both the disputes is dependent on common set of facts. The respondents Indian Oil Corporation Limited issued an advertisement for selection of L.P.G. dealers to be located at Wazirganj, Dev Block in the district of Gaya. Petitioner Ravi Shekhar Singh was placed at serial no. 2 on the merit list and petitioner Subodh Kumar was No. 1 in the panel but after selection the matter did not proceed to its logical end. No final decision was taken. From the pleading it emerges that a second set of interview was ordered to be conducted. This led to filing of both the writ applications. - 3 - Contention of petitioner Subodh Kumar is that since he was number 1 on the panel, the Letter of Intent should have been issued to him and the process of appointment should be completed in his favour. He had a legitimate right and expectation to be appointed based on the selection. Contention of petitioner Ravi Shekhar Singh is that there were certain irregularities in the selection process. These facts were brought to the notice of the Indian Oil Corporation. The matter was investigated by the Vigilance and the allegation against the first empanelled candidate, namely, Subodh Kumar was found to be true. If the first empanelled candidate is knocked out from the pedestal, he is the next man who is fit to be appointed being number 2 on the selection list. Counter affidavit has come to be filed in both the writ applications. From the pleadings and materials which have been brought on record on behalf of the respondents, it emerge that the selection process was not free and fair. The allegation made by the second empanelled candidate was found to be true and the Vigilance committee of the respondent Corporation recommended that the entire - 4 - selection is vitiated for the reasons indicated in the report. They were of the considered opinion that based on the selection process conducted earlier, the appointments could not be made. It was in this background that a second round of interview was called for and all the candidates were duly informed and invited to participate in the selection process before the selection committee. So far as the writ application of Subodh Kumar is concerned, in the above noted circumstance, merely because he was put on the first position as an empanelled candidate, he does not have a vested right in this regard. Mere selection is not a right for appointment. The Hon’ble Apex Court has already held that even issuance of Letter of Intent is not a right in favour of a candidate. So far as his writ application is concerned, there is sufficiency of material for cancellation of the first result. His writ application, being C.W.J.C. No. 3654 of 2005 , therefore, has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. Coming down to the contention of the second writ application of Ravi Shekhar Singh, from the counter affidavit, it is clear that registered notice on the given address was - 5 - issued to all the candidates who were participants to the first set of interview. Notice came to be issued even to the petitioner. Proof thereof has been produced along with the counter affidavit. It is the stand of the petitioner that he did not have adequate information and, therefore, he failed to participate in the interview. This has created serious prejudice to his right and interference of the Court, therefore, is required. The Court has perused the material and seen that the registered letter had been issued and that had been received by some body on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner denies existence of such person and does not want to own up as to the existence of one Vibha who had put endorsement in the Acknowledgment due. The fact that the registered letter had been issued by the Company is not denied. Service thereof on the given address of the petitioner is also not denied. If there is a gap in between, the responsibility does not lie at the door of the Company but at the door of the petitioner. If there is a failure in service on behalf of the Postal department, the petitioner has remedy under the law enacted in this regard to sue the Postal department but the - 6 - reasons indicated by the petitioner for non participation in the interview is not enough to interfere with the second set of interview in which the petitioner could not participate. No finality has been reached in the second set of interview because of the interim order which had been passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3654 of 2005 on 5.4.2005. C.W.J.C. No. 13167 of 2007 also has no merit. In the above stated circumstance, both these writ applications stand dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)