HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.6220 of 2010 Date: November 29, 2011 Between: Hari Prasad Nagesh Pitchiraju Mavuleti … Petitioner And 1. M/s. Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited, represented by its Senior Regional Manager, Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.6220 of 2010 O R D E R: Petitioner questions the impugned proceedings of the ﬁrst respondent whereunder he as well as respondent 2 and another candidate were informed that the complaint ﬁled by the second respondent herein was examined and disposed of ﬁnding merit therein and accordingly ﬁnal short list of candidates was revised. By virtue of this revised list, petitioner, who was, short listed at serial No.1 came down to serial No.2, whereas the second respondent herein, who was listed at serial No.2 earlier, was reinstated at serial No.1. Aggrieved by the said communication and questioning the manner in which the ﬁrst respondent has entertained the complaint of the second respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 2. By order dated 19.3.2010, this Court admitted the writ petition and restrained the ﬁrst respondent from issuing letter of intent to respondent 2 as an interim measure. Applications for vacating the said order together with counter-aﬃdavit have been ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent as well as the second respondent. The matter was heard on the last date of hearing on 08.11.2011 and the learned counsel for the ﬁrst respondent was required to produce the records. Today, the matter is heard once again giving due opportunity to all the counsel to make submissions. 3. The primary contention raised by the petitioner is that as per the Grievance Redressal Mechanism provided under the brochure of the ﬁrst respondent any applicant who is aggrieved by the selection is required to send his complaint to the Area Oﬃce/State Oﬃce in which the interview location is located and such complaint must be ﬁled within 30 days from the date of declaration of results and that the ﬁrst respondent shall make eﬀorts to ensure that such representation is disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of response of the complainant and pending disposal of the complaint Letter of Intent if issued will be kept in abeyance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was selected in the interview in pursuance of Notiﬁcation dated 01.10.2007. So far as Gudur Mandal, Krishna District is concerned after the interviews were held on 29.01.2008 petitioner was empanelled at serial No.1 and short list was also announced on the same day. The second respondent herein was shown at serial No.2. Petitioner thereafter received notice in a writ petition W.P. No.1834 of 2008 ﬁled by one Manjula questioning the selection of the petitioner herein. The said writ petition was contested and was ultimately dismissed by order of this Court dated 07.11.2008. The petitioner thereafter received the impugned proceedings dated 06.11.2009 informing him that the complaint of second respondent has been favourably considered and he is placed at serial No.1 in view of revision of marks between the second respondent and the petitioner. The said impugned proceeding is now questioned in this writ petition. 5. One of the main contentions was that the complaint of the second respondent was entertained beyond 30 days period contrary to Grievance Mechanism under clause 21.1. The procedure adopted by the ﬁrst respondent in disposal of the said complaint was commented upon as being highly arbitrary and is contrary to fairness in procedure. 6. The ﬁrst respondent Oil Corporation has ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit by its Senior Regional manager, who has stated in paragraph 5.1 that the complaint dated 26.02.2008 was received on 28.02.2008 through the advocate for the second respondent and since it was within 30 days prescribed under clause 21.1, it was entertained. It was also stated in the counter that assessment of candidature of the second respondent so far as annual income is concerned was found to be erroneous and after taking into consideration the documents ﬁled by respondent 2 he was correctly assessed whereby the marks awarded to him earlier, increased by 2 marks and thereby he became number one in the short listed panel. The question of any extraneous consideration or impropriety in consideration of the complaint was denied. It was also denied that there was any violation of any guidelines by the ﬁrst respondent. Along with the counter- aﬃdavit a Xerox copy of complaint of the second respondent dated 26.6.2008 was ﬁled together with acknowledgement showing the date of receipt and it is evident from the receipt stamp on the said document that it is received by the ﬁrst respondent on 28.02.2008 which is within 30 days as provided under clause 21.1. The disposal of the said complaint under the impugned proceedings undoubtedly is on 06.11.2009. The second respondent also ﬁled counter including copy of the same complaint dated 26.02.2008 together with correspondence between the first and second respondents. 7. It is evident that under the letter of 03rd March 2008 ﬁrst respondent informed the second respondent’s counsel that they have received the complaint and required the second respondent to substantiate the allegations within 30 days. In response thereto, under letter of the second respondent counsel dated 01.4.2008 necessary documents with aﬃdavits were produced before the ﬁrst respondent which was again responded to by the ﬁrst respondent by letter dated 27.3.2008 informing the second respondent that a Senior Manager is appointed as investigating oﬃcer to look into the complaint and requiring the second respondent to appear before the said oﬃcer on the date and time ﬁxed at the venue informed. The said investigating officer, on his report dated 17.9.2009, found substance in the complaint and reported that the marks awarded to the second respondent are not in accordance with the parameters for assessment and consequently the second respondent is entitled to 2 more marks in the category of gross annual income. In view of the said report ﬁnal marks lists were revised and the second respondent was found to be entitled to 87.87 marks in aggregate, whereas, the petitioner had secured 87 marks and another candidate 85 marks. Since the second respondent has secured highest marks was therefore placed at serial No.1. 8. Petitioner’s counsel raised three fold contentions: (1) The complaint of the second respondent was entertained beyond 30 days under clause 21.1. (2) The disposal of the said complaint is clearly contrary to clause 21.2 and instead of disposing of the complaint within three months, it was taken twenty months to dispose of the complaint, thereby serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner. (3) It is contended that the procedure adopted by the ﬁrst respondent is highly arbitrary as though the first respondent has corresponded with the second respondent more than once, in connection with the complaint; there has been no correspondence whatsoever with the petitioner nor the petitioner was given any opportunity. 9. I am of the view neither of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are sustainable. Reasons therefor are as follows: The complaint of the second respondent was required to be made within 30 days as per clause 21.1 and the facts narrated above as well as copy of the complaint produced before this Court satisﬁes this Court that the said complaint dated 26.02.2008 was received by the ﬁrst respondent on 28.02.2008 which is within 30 days from the date of declaration of results i.e., 29.01.2008. So far as the disposal of the complaint is concerned, undoubtedly it has exceeded three months time limit as mentioned in clause 21.2, but the said time limit cannot be construed as mandatory in view of clause 21.2 itself which reads as follows: “21.2. Eﬀorts would be made to ensure that the representation/complaint is disposed oﬀ within 3 months from the date of receipt of response of the complainant.” The aforesaid clause itself would suggest that the disposal within three months is preferable and cannot be read as mandatory and certainly, cannot vitiate the entire Grievance Redressal Mechanism itself. It is also evident from the record that the ﬁrst respondent has called for additional information, entrusted the matter to an investigating oﬃcer who has personally veriﬁed from the second respondent the complaint as well as the documents of the second respondent coupled with the fact that in the interregnum there was a writ petition by another candidate which came to be dismissed only on 07.11.2008. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also laid stress on the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent in the said earlier writ petition to substantiate that the alleged complaint of the second respondent is not even referred to by the ﬁrst respondent in the said counter-aﬃdavit and thereby the very correctness of the said statement was doubted by the petitioner. It is true that there is no reference of second respondent’s complaint in the said counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent. But it has to be remembered that the second respondent was not a party to that writ petition and the issue relating to the complaint or the inter se comparison between the petitioner and the second respondent did not arise in that writ petition and all the averments therein were with reference to entitlement of the petitioner. Thus, absence of reference of second respondent’s complaint in the said counter-aﬃdavit, in my view, does not vitiate entertaining of complaint which was found to have been ﬁled within 30 days and is disposed of after following due procedure. No apparent prejudice is caused to the petitioner by non-disposal of complaint of respondent 2 within three months as stipulated in clause 21.2 and merely because the complaint is decided about 20 months cannot invalidate the decision of the ﬁrst respondent on the said complaint, particularly as the petitioner who was merely short listed at serial No.1 is not any way prejudiced thereby. So far as the contention with regard to procedural irregularity as alleged, I am unable to see any reason why the ﬁrst respondent should have corresponded with the petitioner as there was neither any complaint nor any error pointed out with regard to assessment of candidature of the petitioner. There was nothing for the ﬁrst respondent Corporation to consult the petitioner or notify him of any enquiry. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore having not substantiated on merits, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel of dismissal of the writ petition, interim order dated 19.3.2010 shall stand vacated. _____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Date: November 29, 2011. BSB