1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.893 OF 2010 (Vaibhav s/o Kailashkumar Agrawal vs. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : APRIL 9, 2010 Heard Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel for the respondent. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that action of the respondent in cancelling the process of interview for allotment of retail outlet dealership at Achalpur undertaken pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.5.2009 issued by the respondent is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the 2 petitioner, states that pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for retail outlet dealership and the petitioner was called for interview, petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee and was selected by the said Committee and name of the petitioner was empanelled at serial no.1 in the select list. It is contended that at later point of time, instead of allotting the retail outlet dealership, the respondent cancelled the select list and hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that action taken by the respondent of cancelling the select list is under Clause 18(e) of the guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealer. It is contended that the action taken by the respondent is inconsistent with the procedure stipulated in the said Clause and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel for the respondent, supports the impugned action and states that though the petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee and was shown at serial no.1 in 3 the select list, however, the selection made by the Selection Committee is subject to scrutiny by the competent Senior Officer of the Corporation as per Clause 18(e) of the guidelines. It is further contended that in case of any change in the merit panel, if found on the scrutiny, the respondent can take appropriate steps in this regard. It is submitted that the competent Senior Officer of the Corporation after selection of the petitioner and others found that selection of the petitioner was not as per the guidelines and, therefore, submitted the report accordingly and on the basis thereof, the competent Authority of the respondent cancelled the earlier selection process and called the same candidates for fresh interview. All the candidates including the petitioner participated in the said process. The second merit panel was prepared and the name of the petitioner is at serial no.3. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused Clause 18(e) of the guidelines. It is no doubt true that the petitioner appeared before the Selection 4 Committee pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.5.2009 issued by the respondent and was selected and his name was at serial no.1 in the select list. Perusal of Clause 18(e) of the guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealer demonstrates that the merit panel declared by the Selection Committee after interview shall be deemed to be final only after its post selection scrutiny of the marks by the competent Senior Officer of the Corporation and in case of any change in the merit panel, if found on scrutiny, the competent Authority is entitled to take appropriate steps in this regard. In the instant case, the competent Senior Officer of the Corporation on scrutiny found that the selection of the petitioner was not in accordance with the procedure and norms applicable in this regard. Hence, selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.5.2009 was cancelled and the fresh interview process was conducted in which all the empanelled candidates participated including the petitioner. After the second interview process, which was undertaken, the name of the petitioner is at serial no.3 in the select list. 5 In the backdrop of the above referred facts and circumstances, no case is made out for showing indulgence. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj