IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14577 of 2008 BASANTI BAISHYANTRI, wife of Sri Bhagatwat Lal Baishyantri, R/O Professors Colony, Forbesgang, Araria, District – Araria, presently residing at House No.A/24, Road No. 18, Rajeev Nagar, P.S. Rajeev Nagar, District-Patna. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, Petroleum Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director having its Registered Office at Bharat Bhawan, Karim Bhai Road, Bellard Estate, P.B. No. 688, Mumbai – 400 001. 3. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited through its Chairman cum M.D., Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051, India; Corporate Office at 3079/3, Sadig Nagar, J B Tito Marg, New Delhi-110 049. 4. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its M D cum Chariman, Regd. Office at 17 Jamshed Ji Tara Road, Mumbai – 400 020. 5. The Sr. Regional Manager, BPCL, IIIrd Floor, Ashiyana Chamber, Exhibition Road, Patna. 6. The Regional Manager, IOC Ltd, Area Office, 1st Floor, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna. 7. The Regional Manager, HPCL, 6th Floor Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 8. The Territory Manager, LPG, Raniganj, Raniganj Territory, Panishalaht, Ranignaj, West Bengal. ----------- For the petitioner : Dr. Anshuman. For the IOC : Mr. K D Chatterjee. For the BPCL : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad. ---------- 02. 30.4.2010 A combined advertisement was issued by the three Oil Companies namely, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The advertisement was published in Hindustan (Hindi) on 17th of October, 2007. Advertisement was with regard to appointment of LPG distributors for various locations indicated in the said advertisement, which is annexure-2 to the writ application. Petitioner is interested for Forbesganj location. 2 According to the petitioner, when advertisement was issued initially in the year 2004 Forbesganj was reserved for SC category. 2007 advertisement made it into an open category. This, according to the petitioner, is in breach of the guidelines laid down by the Oil Companies that schedules castes and scheduled tribes are entitled to 25 per cent reservation. Two things which must be noted at the outset are that selection for the said location has already been made. That selection was a matter of challenge in CWJC No. 18171 of 2008 and a Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.3.2010 had upheld the said selection. In other words, much water has flown since the advertisement was issued and the writ was filed. No prayer for stay of any kind was made and therefore, selection has proceeded and taken finality. The other aspect which has been pointed out by the learned counsel representing the Oil Corporation is that reserved category undergoes a change if the initial advertisement does not beget suitable response under that category. The changes are made on the recommendation at the highest level after due deliberations. It is obvious from the advertisement which was re- issued in the year 2007 that no selection could be made under the scheduled castes category in the initial advertisement issued in the year 2004. Not only that it is also the stand of the respondent Corporations that 25 per cent reservation is given on the total vacancy available and the locations are worked out accordingly. 3 Merely because Forbesganj was under a reserved category at one point of time, it does not mean that subsequent advertisement will have to stick to the said category. Reservation has been granted on the totality of the vacancies and in conformity with the guidelines. In view of the developments which have been noticed above and the explanation offered by the respondents, no interference is warranted in the present writ application. Petitioner’s prayer seems to be misplaced and under mistaken notion. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )