IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19109 of 2011 Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Mahaseth S/O Shri Shiv Shankar Prasad Mahaseth R/O Vill.& P.O. Sagarpur, P.S. Sakri, Distt. Madhibani ----------- Petitioner. Versus 1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a Govt. Of India Enterprise Having its Corporate Registered Office situated At Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director. 2. The Area Marketing Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. cum Dealer Section Officer 3rd Floor, Ashiyana Chamber, Exhibition Road, P.S Gandhi Maidan, Distt. Patna 3. The Coordinator, Dealer Selection Officer, Office Of The Area Marketing Manager ,Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. cum Dealer Section Officer, 3rd Floor, Ashiyana Chamber, Exhibition Road, P.S Gandhi Maidan, Distt. Patna 4. The DGM Coordination & PIO (Retail), 12/E & F, Maker Towers Cuffe Parade, P.B. No. 19949 Mumbai- 400005 ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 6. 19.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hold the interview of the petitioner for consideration of his selection as a Retail Outlet for Sagarpur Village Location in the district of Madhubani as the respondents have wrongfully deprived the petitioner to appear in the interview on the fixed date by not 2 sending the interview letter with a reasonable margin much less the margin of clear 15 days for appearance in the interview. (ii) For quashing the advertisement published in the newspaper on 18.8.2011 inviting application for appointment of Retail Outlet for the same location for which the petitioner has earlier been deprived from his interview; and for any other relief(s) for which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. In this case admitted position is that an advertisement was published by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.( B.P.C.L.) for appointment of a Retail Outlet Dealer under general category for Sagarpur Location falling within village and P.O. Sagarpur, P.S. Sakri, in the district of Madhubani on 30.5.2010. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was the sole applicant and interview letter was prepared on 9.2.2011 fixing 25.2.2011 as the date of interview. Finally the said interview letter was dispatched by the respondents by post on 15.2.2011 which reached the petitioner on 26.2.2011, when the date of interview had already passed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he filed two representations in succession i.e. on 7.3.2011 and 5.5.2011 before the respondent authorities stating the aforesaid facts and requesting for rearranging 3 the interview of the petitioner as he was the only candidate. He also claims that the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 and vide letter dated 19.8.2011 the B.P.C.L. informed that the Dealer Selection Guidelines stipulate that call letters will be issued to eligible candidates giving a clear notice of 15 days to appear for the interview. However, on 18.8.2011 a fresh advertisement was published by the respondents for the same purpose and hence the petitioner challenged the said action of the authorities by way of filing the instant writ petition on 19.10.2011. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner but he has been deprived of the said opportunity due to the fault of the respondents authority as interview letter was served upon him after expiry of the date of interview. It is further argued that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and the action of the authorities was absolutely unreasonable and the doctrine of legitimate expectation would be attracted against them. In this regard he relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. and others Vs. Union of 4 India and others, reported in (2007)2 SCC 640. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that it was admitted by the respondent authorities that Dealer Selection Guidelines stipulate that call letters will be issued to eligible candidates giving a clear notice of 15 days to appear for the interview, but the authorities concerned clearly violated their own conditions and hence their action is arbitrary apart from being discriminatory and in the said process by waiving their condition they have denied equal opportunity available to the petitioner. In this connection he relies upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vrs. The International Airport Authority of India and others, reported in A.I.R. 1979 SC 1628. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its authorities vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and claim that in response to the fresh advertisement dated 18.8.2011, the petitioner has himself applied and his application along application of others are under consideration. 8. From the averments made by the learned 5 counsel for the parties and the facts and materials on record, it is quite apparent that the interview letter issued by the authorities to the petitioner was violative of the guidelines provided by the Corporation itself. Hence the interview letter issued by the respondent to the petitioner can not be held to be legal and proper in view of the principle of law settled by the aforementioned case laws. However, the date of interview fixed in the said letter having already been expired it was legal and proper for the respondents to issue fresh advertisement for the post concerned, which the respondents have done in this case. 9. Obviously competition is always more welcome than monopoly specially with respect to selection in such matter. Furthermore, the petitioner himself having filed his application in response to fresh advertisement dated 18.8.2011 he has accepted the situation and his application has to be considered in accordance with law by the authorities concerned without being prejudiced by the earlier claims of the petitioner including this writ petition. 10. It goes without saying that the authorities must always dispatch the interview letters to the candidates as per the specific guidelines provided by the respondents 6 concerned. 11. With the aforesaid observations this writ petition is disposed of. Vinay/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)