IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3114 of 2007 KUMAR SANJEEV S/O SHRI AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH R/O VILLAGE- ANDHAR PO-KATAHARA, PS-SULTANGANJ DISTT- BHAGALPUR--------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, SCOPE COMPLED 4TH COREII, 7TH FLOOR INDUSTRIAL AREA, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 2. THE G.M. IOC LTD. SCOPE COMPLED 4TH CORE II, 7TH FLOOR INDUSTRIAL AREA LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 3. THE SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RETAIL SALES IOC, PATNA 4. THE AREA MANAGER IOC, BHAGALPUR-------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha,Sr.Advocate And Mr. A.K.Sinha, Advocate For the IOC: Mr. K.D.Chatterji & Mr. A.K.Verma Advocates ---------- 5 12.3.2010 When the writ application was filed and the matter was argued, in absence of materials and reasonings brought by the respondents Corporation for holding reinterview for selection on 16.4.2007, it came to be stayed on 9.4.2007. Primary reason was that the said communication did not indicate the reason for cancellation of the earlier interview. Thereafter the detailed counter affidavit on behalf of the Corporation has been filed. The reason for holding of fresh interview has emerged from the discussion contained in annexure-C/1. The reason which has been stated is that if there is any difference in the policy of the Corporation for selection of Kishan Seva Kendra (KSK) dealership and the text of advertisement in the newspapers, as is this case, the selection committee has to be guided by the advertisement and the clause of the advertisement. Non-consideration of second empanelled candidate, namely, Sri Manoj Kumar’s claim to be awarded marks in the parameter of land and infrastructure based on the consent - 2 - letter submitted by him on plain paper has vitiated the earlier selection. Non-grant of marks under the head of land and infrastructure has created serious prejudice against the second empanelled candidate. In terms of the guidelines brought on record if the difference of marks between the first and second candidate is less than 5% then a fresh selection process is required to be gone through. The submission of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that the consent letter provided by the second empanelled candidate executed by his father is not convincing in the eye of law because the land in question is an ancestral land and there are other brothers who too have a right to claim share in such property as a coparcener. This is no ground for quashing the decision. The implication of such consent will have to be seen by the Selection Board and if any clarification is required on this issue the second empanelled candidate will give his response. Now with the reason and the material are on record behind the decision of holding of reinterview and the Court is otherwise satisfied with the reasoning, this writ application is required to be disposed of with freedom to the Corporation to hold reinterview. It is open to the petitioner to participate in the said interview for selection. Whether he has right to raise objection - 3 - against the consent letter or its implication is for him to decide. This writ application is disposed of with the above liberty. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)