1 23 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5216/2006. Smt. Rajya Shri @ Saroj Kumari Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Date of Order :: 10th November 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Nikhil Dungawat, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Bhansali, for the respondent. ..... BY THE COURT: The case of the petitioner is that she applied for being appointed as Dealer of the respondent – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ('HPCL') for its outlet at Asop, District Jodhpur under the Open (Women) Category pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.10.2005 (Annex.1); that she was called for the interview and she did appear for such an interview on 11.01.2006; that out of the three, only two applicants appeared in the interviews, of which the petitioner secured highest marks i.e., 63.3 out of 100 whereas the other candidate secured 32 marks out of 100. According to the petitioner, she was anxiously waiting for the letter of intent from the respondent for award of such retail outlet but no information was given to her. The petitioner has filed this writ petition while stating the grievance that despite representations, there was no redressal by the respondent 2 company; and has prayed for the relief that the respondent be directed to award the dealership in question to her as per merit while following the Statement of Performance of candidates interviewed on 11.01.2006 strictly and effectively. In response to the show cause notice issued in this writ petition, the respondent-HPCL has filed a reply stating, inter alia, that the interviews for the said location were held on 11.01.2006 and after declaration of result, the process for issuance of the letter of intent was under way but, on 17.01.2006, the candidate who did not appear on 11.01.2006, Smt. Shobha Devi, made a representation that she was issued the interview call-letter only for the date 17.01.2006. According to the answering respondent, the matter was examined at the Senior Manager's level and the complaint filed by the said candidate was processed as per the Grievance Redressal System provided in the guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers; that the matter was investigated at the Zonal Level but the Investigating Officer found it difficult to establish as to whether the lapse had been on the part of the absentee- applicant or on the part of the Regional Office; and it was suggested that in order to give fair opportunity to the candidates, fresh selections be held; and in view of such recommendation, it was decided by the Deputy General 3 Manager, In-charge North Zone, to cancel the selection process earlier held for the said location on 11.01.2006 and to conduct fresh interviews, inviting all the eligible candidates. The answering respondent has, of course, denied submission of any representation by the petitioner but has averred that open her appearing in person and making inquiries, the petitioner was apprised of the fact situation and the order passed by the Zonal Office on the complaint of Smt. Shobha Devi. The answering respondent maintains that proceedings have been adopted strictly in accord with the laid down parameters and the guidelines; and when it was difficult to find as to whether the lapse occurred on the part of the applicant or at the level of the Zonal Office, the proceedings were adopted so as to extend fair opportunity of consideration to all the eligible candidates. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and this petition must fail. In the first place, there is nothing on record to even remotely find if the respondent at all acted in an unfair or irrational manner. In the result sheet (Annex. 3), the name of the third candidate Smt. Shobha Devi does appear and she 4 has been marked absent. The respondent has pointed out that the said candidate, Smt. Shobha Devi, appeared on 17.01.2006, and made the submission that she had received the call-letter stating the date of interview as 17.01.2006 only; and the submissions as made by the said candidate were not found to be incorrect on facts. It is a different mater that the respondent was unable to arrive at a specific conclusion regarding the responsibility for the fault and lapse but and however, once the fact was indisputable that the said candidate received a call-letter for a different date, she having been denied the opportunity of consideration for some mistake at some level was apparent; and the rules of fair play obviously required the respondent to consider the said candidate too. In the given fact situation, the decision taken for re-interviews cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or irrationality. Apart from the aforesaid, noteworthy it is that though having been made aware, at least in the reply to this writ petition, of the fact that the decision for re-interviews was taken because of the complaint of the said candidate, Smt. Shobha Devi, the petitioner has chosen not to implead the said candidate a party to this writ petition. Having regard to the subject matter of this writ petition, no effective relief could be 5 granted in favour of the petitioner in the absence of the said candidate, Smt. Shobha Devi. All said and done, the decision taken by the respondent being in accord with the principles of fair play so as to extend fair opportunity of consideration to all the eligible candidates, there is no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/