IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8386 of 2006 MADHU KUMARI, daughter of Indra Nand Sah, resident of village – Abjaganj, P.S. Sultanganj, District – Bhagalpur, Pin – 813213. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman and Managing Director, having its registered office at 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai - 400020. 3. The General Manager (Eastern Zone), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 6, Church Lane, Kolkata – 700001. 4. The Sr. Regional Manager (Retail), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 5. Nirupma kumari, daughter of Arun Kumar Singh, resident of Sultanganj, P.O. and P S – Sultanganj, District – Bhagalpur. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S. Kali Das Chatterji and Anil Kumar Sinha. For the respondent Corporation: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta. For the respondent no.5: M/S. Ram Balak Mahto, Sr. Advocate and Krishna Mohan. --------- 08. 17.02.2010 Statement made in para 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Oil Company came to be seriously disputed by the petitioner. Statement related to the kind of bank balance, private respondent No.5 had in her account and the award of marks by the interview board based on that information. The Court directed the respondent Corporation to respond on the same and a rejoinder affidavit came to be filed making yet another statement in para 6. The Corporation expressed apologies to the Court with regard to earlier statement or misstatement made in para 10, under circumstances explained therein. 2 A categorical statement now made is that based on the verification of the original records, the account number and the balance given in para 6 of the rejoinder application reflects the true state of affairs. Since the dispute was creation of the Corporation because of the two contradictory statements, the Court directed production of original records relating to selection. It was produced in a sealed cover, opened on the direction of the Court and the Court gave an opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner to verify the statements for himself. The original record stands verified and learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly accepts that the statement made in para 6 of the rejoinder of the Company states the correct facts. If that is the stated position, which is not in dispute any more, then the basic foundation or basis for challenge of selection of respondent no.5 is knocked out and no further adjudication or re-look into the exercise in question is required. Learned Senior counsel representing respondent No.5 submits that the facts are there for one and all to see. He does not want anything to be added to the actual state of affairs. In view of the above stated position, there is no merit left in the writ application. It stands dismissed. 3 The original records are returned to the counsel for the Corporation in the Court itself. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )