IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 23607 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT.AMMINI.K.J, W/O.K.Y.MATHAI, KUNJUVEETIKUDI HOUSE, ARACKAPADY, VENGOLA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE,PANAMPILLY NAGAR COCHIN-36. 2. CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD,PANAMPILLIY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 4. VARGHESE.V, THURUTHIYIL, HOUSE, ALLAPPARA.P.O, PIN-683 553. ADV. SC SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1 SRI.V.J.ANAND FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).23607/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges the selection of the fourth respondent as a Petrol Pump Dealer, of the first respondent. As per Ext.P1 notification, applications were invited from eligible persons for establishing Petrol Pumps under Kisan Seva Kendra Scheme (KSK). The proposed petrol bunk was notified in the Open Pool. Petitioner submitted an application as per Ext.P1. Apparently, she was expected to be called for an interview. Her complaint is that she was not called for the interview thereafter. She sent Ext.P2 representation which was met with Ext.P3 reply from the second respondent stating that call letter was despatched in the address shown in the application Under Certificate of Posting on 19.11.2007. Xerox copy of the acknowledgment received from the postal authorities was also enclosed therewith. In reply to a query made by the petitioner, the Manager of the Customer Care Centre of the Post Office at Aluva, W.P.(C).23607/2008 2 replied vide Ext.P4 that the GDS SPM Vengola has reported that the articles received at Vengola Post Office have been delivered correctly to the addressee. Petitioner sent Ext.P5 complaint on 18.6.2008, which was almost more than four months after Ext.P4 and she has thereafter approached this Court in August, 2008. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent pointing out that the guidelines applicable for selection under the KSB Scheme, Annexure-A, do not specifically provide for the despatch of call letters under registered post. Call letter was despatched to the petitioner as mentioned in Ext.P3. Fourth respondent was found to be eligible and was ranked No.1. Guidelines contemplate that a complaint by a participant against selection has to be preferred within thirty days from the date of the interview. Apparently, complaint dated 5.1.2008 was actually received by the third respondent only on 23.1.2008 and it was immediately met with Ext.P3 reply. There are no W.P.(C).23607/2008 3 reasons as such to interfere with the selection of the fourth respondent, it is contended. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Anil kumar and learned Counsel for the first respondent, Mr.E.K.Nandakumar. It cannot be said that despatch of the call letter should necessarily have been by registered post. I do not find any specific stipulation in Annexure-A, but having found so, I think it is only appropriate to observe that in future, to avoid controversy, call letter may be sent in a case like this under Registered Post. Suitable notice of this observation may be taken by the first respondent. 4. Further, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the selection of the fourth respondent. This is for more than one reason. Firstly, petitioner does not specifically attribute any disqualification on the part of the fourth respondent. Secondly, a complaint seems to have been sent by the petitioner only in January, 2008 and a letter W.P.(C).23607/2008 4 of intent was issued in favour of the fourth respondent on 8.1.2008. Thirdly, though Ext.P3 reply was received by the petitioner in January, 2008 itself, and Ext.P4 communication from the postal authorities was received on 7.2.2008, petitioner has sought to approach this Court only in August, 2008. This was more than seven months since a letter of intent was issued to the successful participant. As I noted above, in the absence of any specific disqualification on the part of the fourth respondent, I do not think this is a fit case to be interfered with, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs