IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13152 of 2006 MD.FIRDAUS ALAM S/O MD. KISMAT ALI, R/O VILLAGE LAGUA, P.O. SHANKOLA PS- ABADPUR,BLOCK- BARSOI, DISTT- KATIHAR---------------PETITIONER Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECY.,PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. UNDER SECY. GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS, SHGASTRI BHAWANNEW DELHI 3. CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR, IOC. LTD. regd. Office, INDIAN OIL BHAWAN G-9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI 4. (D.G.M.)(R.S) (RETAIL SALES) IOC (MARKETING DIVISION) LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN (5TH FLOOR),PATNA 5. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER(RETAIL SALES) IOC LTD. BEGUSARAI 6. AREA SALES MANAGER, IOC, LTD. PURNEA 7. MD. ASLAM PARWANA S/O DR. KABIAUDDIN R/O VILLAGE- GAWAL TOLI, PS- ABADPUR, DISTT- KATIHAR---------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Amrendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate For the Union of India: Mr. M.Iqubal Hassan Rahmani Standing Counsel ---------- 2 4.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing I.O.C. The grievance of the petitioner is that the selection of respondent no.7 for award of the retail outlet dealership under Kishan Seva Kendra has been made in breach of the terms and conditions made in the advertisement and for extraneous reasons. In this regard he also lodged his protest with the company after the selection process as well as filed a complaint before the Ministry on the issue. But since nothing satisfactory outcome was conveyed to the petitioner he was compelled to file the present writ application. Learned counsel representing the I.O.C. submits that the allegation made by the petitioner at the behest of the Ministry was investigated by an officer of the Corporation. The - 2 - outcome of the enquiry was conveyed to the petitioner which is annexure- 5 to the writ application. The allegation or smoke of favouritism alleged by the petitioner was because of his failure in finding a place in the selection list as he himself failed to file complete application and annexures with regard to his eligibility. Paragraph-1 of annexure-5 categorically lays down that the petitioner was not eligible for consideration for the reasons indicated therein. When he failed to make it he started making wild allegations against the selection of eligible candidate to be breach of terms and conditions of the advertisement. There is no clear denial or rebuttal by the petitioner to annexure-5 and the reasons indicated therein. If that be so, then the petitioner not having been found to be eligible for consideration cannot be allowed to challenge the selection of others made by the respondents coupled with the fact that the allegations have been enquired into by a competent authority and has not found to be substantiated on any ground. This writ application is misplaced and it is dismissed as being devoid of merit. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)