IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37706 of 2009(G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ CHRISTOPHER.S., S/O. SAMUEL, PARAKKAL HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (MARKETING) BHARAT BHAVAN, 4 & 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, P.B.NO.688, MUMBAI-400001. 2. REGIONAL MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, RENGANATHAN GARDENS, OFF 11TH MAIN ROAD, ANNANAGAR WEST, CHENNAI-40. 3. TERRITORY MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., LPG TERRITORY OFFICE, P.B.NO.6,KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695582. BY MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 37706 of 2009-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner was an applicant for appointment as LPG distributorship of the first respondent Corporation in the PMP (Para Military Personnel) category at Palode in Thiruvananthapuram District. Ext.P1 is the notification issued in this regard. After the process was over, he was arrayed as third in the panel which is evidenced by Ext.P4. Later, the first and second ranked candidates were disqualified, making him eligible for consideration. After the detailed verification, the respondents have disqualified him also, going by Ext.P7 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The main ground for disqualification is that there is violation of item No.14.2 in the application format, viz. that the petitioner failed to maintain the amount in the bank account for a minimum period of three months from the date of application or the interview whichever is earlier. 3. Attacking the validity of Ext.P7, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same cannot be taken as a ground for disqualification in the light of clause 19(g) of Ext.P1 notification. It cannot be said that the wpc37706 /2009 2 statement made by him in the application was incorrect. Violation of item 14.2 is therefore not a matter which is covered by the grounds for rejection of the application or disqualification as provided under Ext.P1 and therefore rejection as per Ext.P7 cannot be supported. 4. It is the averment of the petitioner that in the application the petitioner has produced his bank statement, according to which, the balance amount in the account was Rs.14767.53 as on 19.1.2009. It is admitted in para 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner did not maintain the same balance continuously for a period of three months as he was regularly operating the account. In fact, it is pointed out that at some point of time the transaction was high, upto Rs.71,567/-. It is therefore argued that the premise under which the petitioner has been disqualified, cannot be supported. 5. The relevant clause requires the applicant to maintain the amount for a minimum period of three months from the date of application or the interview, whichever is earlier. Herein, obviously at the time of interview the above aspect was taken into consideration on the face value. After the field verification alone the true facts were found out. Therefore, the petitioner was arrayed as No.3 in Ext.P4 mainly on the basis of the information given in the application and not on the basis of any verification wpc37706 /2009 3 at that point of time. Plainly the same will not therefore confer any right to get appointment straight away. As there is no dispute that the petitioner did not maintain the amount in the S.B. account for a period of three months from the date of application, I am of the view that the respondents were justified in passing Ext.P7. There is no illegality or irregularity in the procedure adopted. Violation of item No.14.2 in the application format was therefore taken into account by them for disqualifying the petitioner. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/