CWP No.12935 of 2001 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12935 of 2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2011 Harbans Lal Saini ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. None for respondent No.5. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petition challenges the selection of a candidate for offer of dealership of Bharat Petroleum outlet under the Paramilitary Personnel Category. The Paramilitary Personnel Category, as defined in the advertisement, is as under: - “PARAMILITARY PERSONNEL CATEGORY: From amongst the PERSONNEL OF PARAMILITARY/ POLICE PERSONNEL INCLUDING PERSONS HAVING SERVED IN BSF, CRPF, CISG, ITBP, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SPECIAL RESERVED POLICE, SPECIAL CWP No.12935 of 2001 (O&M) [2] 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 THOSE SERVING IN DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS OF CENTRAL/ STATE GOVERNMENTS WHO ARE INCAPACITATED OR DISABLED WHILE PERFORMING THEIR DUTIES AND THEIR WIDOWS/DEPENDENTS IN CASE OF THEIR DEATH WHILE PERFORMING DUTIES.” 2. The petitioner's contention was that he fulfilled all the relevant criteria but his candidature was rejected and the fifth respondent had been selected to be awarded with the dealership. The said selection is the subject matter in the present writ petition. 3. The Bharat Petroleum would defend their action by stating that the petitioner did not fulfill the basic criterion of belonging to Paramilitary Personnel Category in the manner defined under the advertisement. The petitioner had submitted proof of only the fact that he was a member of the Paramilitary Force but did not fall in the category of 'Incapacitated or Disabled' while performing his duty. He had voluntarily retired from service and did not suffer from any disablement as was contemplated for being awarded the contract of dealership. The respondent would further point out to the application form itself that stipulates as the first requirement that he CWP No.12935 of 2001 (O&M) [3] shall belong to anyone of the five special categories prescribed in the application form and a candidate was required to affix a tick mark of whatever category that was applicable. The special categories as prescribed in the application form are as follows: “(a) Widows/dependents of Posthumous gallantry award winners. (b) Widows/dependents of persons having died on duty. (c) Personnel disabled on duty. (d) Widows/dependents of persons who died while in service; and (e) Disabled in peace due to attributable causes.” 4. The statement of the Corporation was to the effect that the petitioner had left unfilled several columns and not filled up all the necessary details. I do not think it necessary to ponder over the issue since the petitioner's counsel was able to convince me that other details which were set through columns 1 to 20, had been properly filled up with appropriate appendices. The case ought to fail only on one reason that he (petitioner) does not belong to one of the five special categories mentioned in the application form. If there was any ambiguity that Paramilitary Personnel Category as set out in the advertisement was not to be taken as restricted only to persons with disability or to the widow of the deceased member of the Paramilitary Force, the application form was clear to the fact that priority was to be given to a disabled person or to a widow or a dependent of the deceased member of the Force. The petitioner belonged neither to the category of disabled member nor as dependent of a deceased member of the Force. The dealership had been awarded to the fifth respondent who was stated to be a CWP No.12935 of 2001 (O&M) [4] widow of a Paramilitary Personnel, who died in “Vijay Operations” of the BSF. The rejection of the petitioner's candidature under the circumstances was justified and the petitioner could not be found entitled to the relief sought for through writ petition. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. JULY 07, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE