IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2186 of 2011 Mamta Rai w/o Shashi Bhushan Rai, resident of village Radhia, P.S. Gobindganj, District East Champaran....................Petitioner. Versus 1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Bhawan 4 and 6 Cunimbhy Road Bhallord Estate P.B. No.688 Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director. 2. The Area Marketing Manager, Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. Ashiana Chamber 3rd Floor Exhibition Road, Patna-1. 3. Sanjay Kumar Shukla S/o Late Rajnandan Shukla, vill-Lauria, P.S. Gobindganj, District East Champaran 4. Rajesh Kumar son of Yogendra Pandey, resident of village Lauriya, P.O. Lauriya (via-Areraj), P.S. Govindganj, District East Champaran……………………………………Respondents. For the petitioner :Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate. For the B.P.C.L. : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Advocate. For respondent no.3 : Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava,Advocate. For respondent no.4 : M/s Prashant Sinha and Bindhyachal Singh, Advocates. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN O R D E R 10/ 29.09.2011 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to cancel the selection list and conduct interview of the petitioner for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership for the location Areraj within the district of East Champaran for which she had filed her application which was not considered as is apparent from the merit selection list. 2. It is not in dispute that the Bihar Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as „the Corporation‟ for the sake of brevity) issued notice in the Hindi daily newspaper “Hindustan” dated 30.05.2010 inviting tender for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealer for different places in the State of Bihar in which the location in question, namely Areraj within the district of East Champaran was at Serial No.127 under general category. - 2 - Pursuant to the said advertisement six persons, namely Abha Verma, Sanjay Kumar Shukla, Rajesh Kumar, Shiv Kumar Mishra, Nayeem Alam and the petitioner filed their applications. Thereafter interview was held on 30.12.2010 in which the petitioner along with another candidate, namely Nayeem Alam were disqualified and out of the remaining four Sanjay Kumar Shukla (private respondent) got the highest 78.04 marks and Rajesh Kumar (petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.6125 of 2011) got 77.75 marks, whereas the remaining two Abha Verma and Shiv Kumar Mishra got very low marks i.e. 32.79 and 25.03 marks respectively. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that she was not included in the panel as she was not allowed to appear in the interview on the ground that she could not produce original copy of Income Tax Return of 2010-2011 Assessment year at the time of interview. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the entire selection procedure was illegal and perverse and hence it must be quashed and fresh interview should be held. He further submitted that she had produced photocopy of original I.T.R. and was ready and willing to produce its original if called, but no such opportunity was given to her. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation stated that the petitioner was not legally entitled to any consideration for the award of Retail Outlet Dealership since she had been rightly disqualified in terms of the “Interview Call Letter” dated 10.12.2010 as original documents, namely I.T.R. etc. were not produced by her at the time of interview. He further averred that the interview letter issued under the procedure prescribed in the Brochure of the Corporation (Procedure for selection of petrol/diesel of retail Outlet Dealership) in which it was clearly stated that if the originals were not - 3 - produced at the time of interview the candidate will be disqualified and the same was acknowledged by the petitioner by signing thereon. He further submitted that format of application under Clause-17 of the Brochure also includes undertaking of the applicants in that regard, but that was also not fulfilled. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 also referred to Clause-19 of the Brochure in which Grievance or Complaint Redressal Forum has been provided but the petitioner did not approach it. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that he was the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.6125 of 2011 and he adopted the argument of the other respondents in this case and added that the petitioner of this case had raised this disputed question of fact regarding production of document which cannot be looked into in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the final order passed in C.W.J.C. No.6125 of 2011, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the said order. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)