IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17579 of 2010 LAW KISHORE SINGH @LAW KISHOR SINGH, son of Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh, resident of village-Darihat, P.S. Darihat, District- Rohtas…. Petitioner Versus 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN.LTD. ( A Government of India Enterprise) through its General Manager, Registered Office, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020. 2. Senior Regional Manager-Retail, Patna Retail Regional Office, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Loknayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th Floor, Post Box No.-40,Dakbunglow Chowk, Patna-800001……. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, Advocate For Respondent H.P.C.L.: Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Advocate --- 2. 25.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The petitioner prays for quashing the order as contained in the letter dated 26.8.2010 issued by the Senior Regional Manager- Retail, Patna Retail Regional Office, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, by which the interview call letter of the petitioner for his allotment/appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer for location between Balia Pul and Nasriganj Thana More in the District of Rohtas under PMP category has been cancelled and for further consequential relief. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner while discharging his duty at Luther Sector near Khai Phemke Bridge under HQ - 2 - Inf. Bde. received a bullet injury causing amputation below left knee, as a result of which he incurred 60% permanent disability and was granted Battle Casualty Certificate dated 2.1.2003 and Medical Certificate dated 8th April,2005 for receiving various rehabilitation and welfare benefits from the Central Government, State Government and Armed Forces. The petitioner was also rehabilitated by being given a post of Clerk in the Office of 51, Engineer Regiment, C/O 56 APO at Chandigarh, where he is working at present. An advertisement dated 11.6.2010 was published for the appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership under PMP category for location between Balia Pul and Nasriganj Thana More in the District of Rohtas. The petitioner applied against the same. The application of the petitioner was scrutinised and thereafter interview call letter was issued to him on 20.8.2010. Thereafter by the impugned letter dated 26.8.2010, the interview call letter of the petitioner was cancelled and withdrawn holding that he was ineligible for selection under PMP category. It is stated in the said letter that he was working in defence,whereas the location in question had been advertised for - 3 - PMP category for which the personnel of paramilitary/Police Personnel including persons having served in BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP, Railway Protection Force, Special Reserved Police, Special Armed Police, Coast Guards, Assam Rifles etc. as designated by the Central Government and the Police Forces of the States, Customs and Central Excise Department, Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, Economic Intelligence Bureau, Director General of Anti-Evasion and Director of Revenue Intelligence and those serving in different Departments of Central/State Governments, who are incapacitated or disabled while performing their duties, were eligible and thus the petitioner does not fall in the said category. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come to this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the PMP category there are as many as three categories of persons who are eligible and one of the category includes employees of the Central Government or the State Government who are incapacitated or disabled while performing their duties. It is stated that the petitioner is discharging his work of Clerk in the office of 51, - 4 - Engineer Regiment, C/O 56 APO at Chandigarh and thus he is an employee of the Central Government and, therefore, he is covered under the PMP category. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the application of the petitioner was scrutinized by a team of officers, who found him to be eligible and thereafter letter for verification of site was issued and the interview call letter was also issued and thus at this stage the question of eligibility cannot be reopened. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the interview call letter mentions only three conditions which are to be fulfilled by the petitioner and on the same alone his case could be considered. It is also submitted by learned counsel that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to cancellation of interview call letter. Lastly, learned counsel alleges that the cancellation has been made on account of refusal of the petitioner to pay any extraneous consideration for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership to the respondent authorities. Learned counsel for the respondent - 5 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., on the other hand, submits that under the Guidelines for Selection of Retail Outlet Dealers,2010, reservation for Retail Outlet Dealership has been provided for various categories which include Paramilitary/Police/ Government Personnel (PMP) to the extent of 8% and Defence Personnel (DC) to the extent of 8 %. It is stated by learned counsel that under the Defence category apart from widow/ dependents of Defence Personnel, war widows/dependents of those who died in war, war disabled, widows/dependents of those who died in harness due to attributable causes, and those disabled in peace due to attributable causes are also eligible to apply and a certificate to this effect is required to be produced from the Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR), Ministry of Defence, Government of India sponsoring the candidate for the dealership. So far as PMP category is concerned, it is submitted that the benefit of the same can only be derived by the Paramilitary and Police Personnel including persons who had served in the various categories on such Paramilitary/Police, Railway Protection Force, Special Armed Police, etc. as - 6 - has been delineated in detail in the Guidelines and apart from the same those serving in different departments of Central/State Governments who are incapacitated or disabled while performing their duties are also eligible. It is urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner did not become incapacitated or disabled while performing his duties in the Department of Central/State Government, rather he had become disabled while serving in the Defence Force, which has been treated as a separate category altogether in the Guidelines and thus he cannot be permitted any benefit under the PMP category. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that the question of coming under the Defence category does not arise in the case of the petitioner as he has already been rehabilitated by being given the post of Clerk under the Ministry of Defence and thus he would be eligible under the PMP category. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. It is evident from clause 3 (a) of the guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet Dealership that there is - 7 - reservation of 8% for Defence Personnel and further reservation of 8% for Paramilitary/Police/Government Personnel under the PMP category. With respect to Retail Outlet Dealership in question under the PMP category, Clause 4 (b)(v) of the Guidelines provides as follows: 4. Eligibility Criteria:- (b) Various Reserved Categories (v) Paramilitary/Police/ Govt. Personnel (PMP): The following persons will be eligible: The personnel of paramilitary/Police Personnel including persons having served in BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP, Railway Protection Force, Special Reserved Police, Special Armed Police, Coast Guards, Assam Rifles etc. as designated by Central Government and Police Forces of the States, Customs and Central Excise Department, Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, Economic Intelligence Bureau, Directorate General of Anti-Evasion and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and - 8 - those serving in different Departments of Central/State Governments who are incapacitated OR disabled while performing their duties. In case of death while performing duties, their widow/dependents will also be eligible. Inter-se Priority, for this category shall be as under: (a) Widows/dependants of posthumous gallantry award winners. (b) Widows/dependants of persons having died in action. (c) Personnel disabled on duty. (d) Widows/dependents of persons who died while in service. (e) Disabled in peace due to attributable causes. Persons, applying under this category, must attach attested copies of such qualifying awards/ certificates, issued by an appropriate and competent authority, from the concerned organization/Govt. Department signed by the Head of Office or an Officer not below the rank of Under Secretary to - 9 - the Govt. indicating that the applicant belongs to the concerned category, along with their applications for dealership.” With respect to the Defence category clause 4 (b) (iii) of the guidelines is as follows: “ 4 (b) (iii) Defence Category (DC): The following persons will be eligible. (a) Widows/dependents of Posthumous gallantry award winners. (b)War widows/dependents of those who died in war. ( c ) War disabled. (d) Widows/dependents of those who died in harness due to attributable causes. (e) Disabled in peace due to attributable causes. The inter-se priority under this category will also be in the above order. Certificate to be produced from Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR), Ministry of Defence, Government - 10 - of India sponsoring the candidate for the dealership for which he/she has applied. Certificate of eligibility issued for one dealership is not valid for another dealership and therefore a candidate can be considered to be eligible only if he/she has been sponsored for the particular location with reference to current advertisement”. It is thus evident from the Guidelines aforesaid that two separate categories for Retail Outlet Dealership have been reserved; first category being of Defence category and the other being Paramilitary/Police/Government personnel (PMP) category. It is evident that a person can be eligible only under one of the two categories and not under both. Under the Defence category a person will be eligible apart from others, who has been disabled in peace due to attributable causes. Under the PMP category an employee serving in different Departments of the Central/State Government would only be eligible if he has been incapacitated or disabled while performing his - 11 - duties. It is evident that the petitioner was a Defence personnel and has been disabled during peace time to the extent of 60% for which necessary certificate has also been issued to him. Thus his case for the selection of Retail Outlet Dealership could only have been considered under the Defence category. So far as the PMP category is concerned, it is true that the petitioner is working on the post of Clerk in an Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of the Central Government but he was not incapacitated or disabled while performing his duty as such Clerk or under the Department of the Central Government rather while he was serving the Defence Force. It is thus, evident that the petitioner can under no stretch of imagination come under the PMP category taking the interpretation put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working under the Department of Central Government and is also disabled. So far as the other submission regarding grant of opportunity of hearing is concerned, the same can have no application at the stage of - 12 - calling a person for interview, as the matter goes to the root of eligibility of the petitioner for the Retail Outlet Dealership in question and at this stage no vested right of the petitioner has arisen, unless he is basically eligible for being selected for the said post. Since the petitioner does not come in the said category, it was not at all required by the respondent authorities to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to cancellation of the interview call letter. The other submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner also do not have any force. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )