IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16531 of 2009 DR.MADHURI SINHA aged about 34 years, wife of Shri Shyam Bihari Prasad Yadvendu, resident of Mohalla – Chiraiyatand, Jail Road, P.O. Gaya, P.S. Rampur, District – Gaya. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Principal Secretary, Department of Petroleum & Gas, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited through Managing Director, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051. 3. The Dy. General Manager (LPG), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Patna Area Office, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Dak-Banglow, Patna-1. 4. Senior Manager (ILS), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Kolkata. 5. The Regional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (Marketing Division), Eastern Region, Indane Area Office, Shahi Bhavan, Exhibition Road, Patna-800 001. 6. Commercial Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (Marketing Division), Eastern Region, Indane Area Office, Shahi Bhavan, Exhibition Road, Patna-800 001. 7. Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (Marketing Division), Eastern Region, Indane Area Office, Shahi Bhavan, Exhibition Road, Patna-800 001. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh. For the Indian Oil Corporation: M/S. Anil Kumar Jha and S K Mishra. -------- 04. 28.01.2010 Petitioner was initially shortlisted and was placed at serial No.1 in matter of award of Indane Distributorship of Indian Oil Corporation located at Gaya. After the award of marks the field investigation was carried out and certain discrepancies came to be found which led to cancellation of her candidature. Decision was communicated by letter dated 5.6.2009 contained in annexure 7 to the writ application. When this order was challenged earlier in a writ application, petitioner was relegated to the respondent authorities of the Corporation to look into the grievance raised by her. The order of the High Court is annexure 1 and is dated 4.8.2009. After due verification on the representation of 2 the petitioner yet another order dated 30.9.2009 (Annexure-10) has been passed. It reiterates the grounds which were stated in annexure 7 to the writ application. The infirmity pointed out in annexure 10 against the petitioner is that in terms of Clause 14.2 of the advertisement specially ‘Appendix B’ the declared amount of liquidity mentioned in the format of the application should remain in the bank for a minimum period of three months from the date of the application or the interview whichever is earlier. In the field investigation it has emerged that there were many transactions in the declared accounts and the balance went down due to such transaction, which was carried out during the so- called locking period of three months. The other aspect which is pointed out is that affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner with regard to her marriage status as well as the multi-dealership clause is also defective as would be evident from the said affidavit which has been brought on record as Annexure-F, along with the counter affidavit of the Corporation. The impugned order contained in annexure 10 gives the details and transactions of the balance which was there during the locking period and it also points out the wrong affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner with her application. The stand of the petitioner is that these are hyper technical views which were taken by the Corporation denying her selection which had accrued in favour of the petitioner. Once she has been found to be most eligible, in every respect the dealership 3 should have accrued to her and the field investigation report cannot be made the basis for taking away benefit rightly earned by her. The stand of the Corporation, however, on the other hand is that the Company is bound by the terms and conditions of the advertisement. If a candidate has breached the terms then the consequence of such breach has to flow. It is not left to the Corporation to ignore such breaches of the clauses to the detriment of other candidate similarly situated. Another aspect which is important to be noted is that the selection made by the Selection Board and marks awarded to a candidate by the Selection Board is based on the declarations made by the candidate in the application form. They have to be re-verified by a field investigation and only when the declarations are found to be in place, duly corroborated by actual physical verification, a right can accrue in favour of the candidate for appointment. It cannot be said that merely because highest marks have been awarded by the Selection Board she has to be selected per say on the basis of such awarded marks. The field investigation report is integral part of final selection process and even if the breach committed by the petitioner is termed as technical, it is still a breach of a condition or conditions which a candidate has to follow till the entire process of selection is completed or gets over. Administrative decisions can be found fault with 4 provided extraneous materials or considerations have gone into such a decision. However, if an administrative authority has only passed an order which is otherwise within the parameters or the conditions of the advertisement, even though it looks hyper- technical , a breach is a breach for which consequence has to flow. No case for interference is made out. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )