IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14149 of 2008 JAI PRAKASH PANDEY SON OF JAGDISH PANDEY, RESIDNET OF VILLAGE MISHRAULI GAYGHAT P.O. BALUA, P.S. BRAHMPUR, DISTRICT BUXAR Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATIN LTD. (MARKETING DIVISION)PATNA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAKBUNGALOW ROAD, PATNA 3. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. MARKET DIVISION, PATNA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BUNGALOW ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE DEALERS SELECTION COMMITTEE NOMINATED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATIOON LTD. LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, DAK BUNGALOW ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE GNERAL MANAGERT, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA. 6. THE DEPUTY MANAGER (SALES), PATNA II, SALES AREA, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (MARKETING DIVISION), MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BUNGALOW ROAD, PATNA. 7. POONAM KUMARI D/O KRISHNA CHATURVEDI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAITHU, P.O. JAMAULI, DISTRICT BUXAR. 8. BINOD KUMAR MISHRA SON OF NOT KNOWN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIMARI, DISTRIT BUXAR. 9. DINESH KUMAR SINGH SON OF NOT KNOWN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANAHI TOLA, MURGOAN KAROL SARARI, DISTRICT BUXAR. ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. Chote Lal Narain Singh, Mohan Kumar Singh & Pramod Kumar For the Union of India :- Mr. Rana Randhir Singh. For Respondent nos. 2 to 6:- M/S. K. D. Chatterjee, Anil Kumar Sinha, Amlesh Kumar Verma. - 2 - For Respondent no. 7 :- Mr. Nikesh Kumar. -------- 8 28/01/2010 This is a second round of litigation. The matter relates to selection of a dealer for a location at Brahampur (Ramgarh) within the district of Buxar. The earlier selection made became a subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 14506 of 2001. The petitioner succeeded before the learned Single Judge when the Court was of the opinion that certain procedural lapses had been committed by the Dealer Selection Board necessitating fresh consideration. The order in question is Annexure-5 to the writ application. Not being satisfied with the said decision, the selected candidate filed an L.P.A., namely, L.P.A. No. 409 of 2004. L.P.A. was dismissed being devoid of any merit. The matter thereafter traveled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a decision has come to be rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2871 of 2008. The decision in question is dated 21.04.2008 and is annexure-7 to the writ application. The conclusion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is in paragraph 10 of the said order. Paragraph 10 is being quoted below for ready reference because much - 3 - emphasis has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the present writ application and the challenge which has been thrown afresh to the selection made by the Indian Oil Corporation after the matter was remanded back by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “While declining to interfere in the matter, because of the procedural lapses noticed by learned Single Judge, we direct that instead of DSB, which is no longer in existence, in the line of what has been directed by this Court in another case, we direct that consideration shall be made by the Selection Committee nominated by the General Manager, IOC, Bihar State Office, Patna, who is stated to be the State Head. Let the Committee deal with the matter expeditiously. Since the matter is pending long, we direct the Committee to consider the matter in its proper perspective, by taking into account all the materials already on record and to be placed by the parties. Let the exercise be completed within a period of four months from today. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” The opening submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decision which had been rendered by the learned Single Judge finding fault with the selection process has been upheld and certified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only thing which the Hon’ble Supreme Court did was that in view of - 4 - the subsequent development that the Dealer Selection Board had been disbanded, a fresh re-look into the matter was required by the selection committee nominated by the General Manager of the IOC. Submission of the petitioner thereof is that in view of the opinion expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Company ought to have looked into those procedural irregularities, redressed them and effected selection. One aspect in this regard is that father of the petitioner had already offered land to the IOC on lease basis subsisting for 30 years. If the land had been offered by the father of the petitioner, then the dealership should have also accrued in favor of the petitioner who is his son and claimant. But despite the above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and infirmity in the procedure pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the respondent Corporation has held a fresh selection process and ousted the petitioner from the zone of consideration. The stand of the respondent Corporation is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order, quoted above, in paragraph 10 has categorically held that the Court had - 5 - not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the new dispensation or arrangement in place. All the candidates came to be interviewed afresh within the parameters and guidelines laid down in this regard and appropriate marks came to be awarded to all the candidates who appeared in the interview. The process of re-interview was held between 22.7.2008 and 25.07.2008 and the result of such exercise is available on record as Annexure-8 series. From the marks sheet itself it will be evident that the petitioner stood disqualified because he failed to produce the original certificate with regard to residence which he had submitted along with the application in the first stage. Since it was the requirement of all candidates to produce the original at the time of interview for verification of declarations, non- compliance thereof led to his disqualification. The other aspect which has been pointed out is that the petitioner has mixed up two different transactions and events to make out a third case in his favour. The IOC with a view to procure land at high commercial turn over locations issued advertisement way - 6 - back on 31.10.1999. Various locations have been indicated in the said advertisement which is annexure-1 to the writ application. Buxar too was a location. The father of the petitioner decided in his wisdom to enter into long term lease with the respondent Corporation. Since the land offered by the father for 30 years was found lucrative a lease agreement was entered into between the Corporation and father of the petitioner. The land was procured for setting up of a retail outlet. The moment the lease agreement was executed, the first advertisement reached its conclusion. Subsequently, the Company decided to issue yet another advertisement on 1.9.2000 which is annexure-3 to the writ application. The advertisement carried a long list of 36 locations for which selection had to be carried out. Brahampur was also one of the locations. Terms and conditions for eligibility and selection were indicated in Annexure- 3 itself. When the petitioner applied for the dealership in question, he claimed that he had to be given preference because land had already been offered to the Company by his father. Nothing more, therefore, was required to be done on this - 7 - score. Since the respondent Company or the earlier Selection Board did not take those aspects into consideration, the High Court, specially the learned Single Judge had to interfere in the matter. Rest of the litigation has already been noted in the earlier part of the order. Submission of the learned counsel representing the IOC is that Annexures 1 & 3 cannot be linked. The eligibility of the petitioner had to be tested on the basis of the terms and conditions laid down in Annexure-3. Since the earlier selection was struck down and the matter travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court which directed the respondent Corporation to carry out a fresh exercise, re-interview of the eligible candidates was held and even the petitioner was called but then if the petitioner failed to produce the original certificate regarding his residence then merely because the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of annulling the earlier selection, it does not mean that the selection will accrue in favour of the petitioner automatically. Perusal of Annexures 1 and 3 coupled with the observation or the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court - 8 - re-produced in the earlier part of the order must be understood in its true import. The fact is that a fresh selection process had to be carried out and the selection had to be carried out in terms of the parameters which were in vogue. Earlier selection any way had been knocked off but the same cannot have a reflection on the fresh selection because fresh selection has been made within the guidelines and there is nothing to show that the petitioner had been singled out or targeted in the selection process which has been carried out. If there was failure on the part of the petitioner to produce the original which led to his disqualification, then the selection process cannot be found to be faulty and to that extent the earlier round of litigation embarked upon the petitioner will have no reflection on the current dispute which has been raised in the present writ application. Learned counsel appearing for the IOC also relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ritu Mahajan Vs. Indian Oil Corporation, (2009) 3 SCC, 506. This decision has been pressed into service for the proposition that every thing must be the - 9 - same before any preferential treatment can be accorded to a candidate. The present petitioner is claiming preference because of the prior lease having been executed by his father in favour of the respondent Corporation earlier. To make out such a case he must show that he was at par with the selected candidate and there was a clause of the kind in the advertisement. In the present case whistle has been blown before the start of second round of interview as he stood disqualified due to non production of the original certificate of his residence. If that be so, this Court does not find any infirmity in the selection process made a second time. The petitioner has not made out a case for interference. This writ application is accordingly dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)