S;-iC^ ^-^, ^> / ^^-^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 tt0.5W OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^•<^<\c> ../••.(:,'»<'•/>'...•- •^•••_^3- V ^*':^':..-••••" (^- Balvinder Singh Saluja S/o Shri Bahadur Singh Satuja, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Jhatap, Tahsit and District Mahasamund (CG) Versus , 1. Union oflndia through General Manager, Human Resourties, tndian Oil Corporation Limited, Distribution Department, Indian 011 Bhawan, G-9, Aliayawar Ganj Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai (MS). 2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division), Indian Oit Bhawan, 16, Arera Hills, Jail Road, Bhopal (MP) y 3. Indian Oil Corporation Limited through the Deputy Managing Director (RS), Madhya Pradesh State OfRce, Indian 011 Bhawan, 16, Arera Hills, Jail Road, Bhopal (MP) ^A. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through the Chief Divisionaf Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil llij'i""i!" '-iMiSaias Corporation Limited, Raipur, Indian Oil Bhawan, V.I.P. Road, Ravigram Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Rani Dhruv W/o Ramavtar Dhruv, aged about 35 years, Constable posted at Police Outpost Padnabhpur, District Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '^^1 _. ....i^ti^'i. rf-y^,./ y/<^ HIGM COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.5789 OF 2011 PETITIONER Balvinder Singh Saluja Versus RESPONDENTS Union of India & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri H.S. Ahulwalia, Advocate for the Union of India. Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 4. ORDER (Passed on this 9 day of November, 2011) 1. Meard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the orders dated 19-8-2011 (Annexure - P/1) and 8-6- 2011 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the respondent No.3. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short "the respondent Corporation") to consider the name of the petitioner for his appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer at village Jhalap, District Mahasamund. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 23-6-2010 (Annexure - P/3), the petitioner and others applied for Retail Outlet Dealership at Jhalap Nhl-6, Mahasamund. After completing fhe selection process, by notice dated 9-11-2010 the respondent Corporation informed that 1 the name ofthe respondent No.5 is at S.No.1 and the name ofthe petitioner at S.No.2 in the merit list. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent Corporation stating that the respondent No.5 submitted the false information with regard to her -credentials and even she is working in the Department of Police and posted at Durg and requested for cancellation of the n:^"^a?fcs^£[•:§g^-^^:^^^^^ sSsSSSSsS^SS^S , y' ,.,,^'^^.•"^ 'K ^...-...-.. I : 9. ^^-w^f^ : ^. ":^" ^°^t, '. y' :T21§J .^y' ,'fs '•?~~-^'!'^s'''' -^' candidature of the respondentNo.5, but no action was taken. Learned counsel submits that in clause 17 (H) ofthe adyertisement, it is clearly stated that in the event it isfound that any statement or information has wrongly been made, the candidature 6f fhe applicant would stand canGelled. In spite of the said provision and in view of submission of sufficient proof against the respondent No.5 by the petitioner, no action has been taken by the respondent Corporation. Thus, this petition, 0(\ the other hand, Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4/Corporation, submits that after receipt of the complaint made by the petitioner, the respondent Corporation investigated the matter from all angles and no document of the respondent No.5 was found as forged or wrong. In the merit panel, the respondent No.5 obtained 86.87 marks whereas the petitioner obtained 85.73 marks. On perusal of the record, it appears fhat the letter of appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer has nof been issued in favour of the respondent No.5 and the same shall be issued to her only after producing the docurrient with regard to acceptance of her resignation from the service, as per the terms & conditions of the advertisement. Clause 8 (a) of the advertisement reads as under: "(8) 3TS!f f?PPT ^ vS (?) ^cRftm tg Ti<)pltl tT^l^n qf¥7T ^StvR ?tTH tfSTT GyRd'lld ^T ^ •^ld'iRl^ q»T <*>l<l+luf ^^ ^ •ild'(Rl4 ^t gRiRi-l ^t ?f¥7r VR Qft^ ^TT, ^•tlPid Uifli^n fe?ft ST^T -(Tui'ii'; ^ qit ^rra ^ Bt7TT. spK c.qfe TR^ ^ ^t -fl^ft ^fRn gt cft sn^grt^ft. EfRT .•^r^;i^..w;.i»i^...£^^S..^SS^S^t^*^ Pl'y.f^f V51 uTpft ^7^ ^ ^ '3^ SPT^ pi<iV<rai grcr SPT^ (T'II^U?) cft ^ftc^Rr ^r giiTwr ^?r ^R-IT ^TTI" 7. In view of foregoing, there is no illegality or infirmity in the action taken by the respondent Corporation. The same is just & proper anddoes not warrant any interference of fhis Court. 8. As an upshot, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, isliable to beand is hereby dismissed. Gowri satishK. Agnihctri Judge u-^-Li ^•—.••y^. •.—...,^^'1.-•—..-.-•^^a