IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16370 of 2009 SMT.PUTUL DEVI W/O SHIR RAGHO LAL DAS, R/O VILLAGE & P.0.-PALASI CHAKARDAHA, VAI-FORBESGANG DISTT- ARARIA----------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORTION LTD.(M.D.) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, G-9, ALI YAWAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST)MUMBAI 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, IOC LTD.(M.D) THROUGH ITS M.D. G-9, ALI YAWAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI 4. GENERAL MANAGER,IOC LTD. (MD),5TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK JAIPRAKASH BHAWAN, DAK BUNGALOW CHOWK,PATNA-1 5. SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, IOC LTD (MD),PATNA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX,DAK BUNGALOW ROAD, PATNA-1 6. SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, IOC LTD. (MD), BEGUSARAI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BARAUNI OIL REFINERY, DISTT-BEGUSARAI---------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. P.K.Jaipuriar and Mr.A. Jaipuriar, Advocates For the IOC: Mr. K.D. Chatterji and Mr. A.K Verma, Advocates For the Union of India: Mr. P.L.Jaiswal, Advocate ----------- 3 12.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ application is by one of the candidates who was an applicant for award of dealership of what is known as Kishan Seva Kendra at Chakardaha in the district of Araria. The petitioner is aggrieved because she was not granted any marks out of the minimum 35 marks fixed for capability to provide land or other infrastructure. The advertisement was made way back on 16.11.2006 and some partial modification to the same was made on 11.8.2007. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Their stand is that it is not a case of any discrimination practised against the petitioner but it is a case where out of seven applicants none of them were found to be eligible for selection based on the land evaluation made by the - 2 - first committee. A second evaluation was carried out after lapse of ten months and these period of interregnum has brought about some changes in the topography of the area because development seems to be catching up in the State of Bihar. The respondent Corporation examined the matter at the highest level and they came to a considered opinion that in view of the subsequent developments the basic parameter had undergone a change and in the given fact that none of the applicants became eligible to be short listed, the best option for the Corporation was to readvertise the site. This decision was also backed by certain opinion based on the fact that free and fair opportunity will be made available to one and all, may be with induction of some fresh blood. The decision in this background has been brought on record with the counter affidavit. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that no purpose will be served by readvertising because it will further delay the selection. It will unnecessarily allow other people to join the race and there is also an opinion expressed at one level of the Company to go for fresh evaluation of land. It will be the interest of things that selection process is completed on the basis of fresh evaluation. The Court is not very impressed from the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, more so when all the seven candidates were found ineligible, on the land and infrastructure parameter. If the selection is made only from the - 3 - seven candidates who were short listed it will only mean trying to pick up some candidate or candidates who were earlier found to be ineligible on the basic requirement of land and infrastructure. If there is change for the better in that area it will be in the interest of petitioner and also all such candidates who may like to join the fray with better infrastructure. In view of the earlier ineligibility of the candidates, the Court does not find any infirmity in the decision of the Corporation to go for fresh advertisement. No direction need to be issued upon Corporation to award any marks to petitioner on the capability to provide land and infrastructure. Let a fresh advertisement be issued at the earliest where every eligible person including this petitioner, if she is still interested can participate. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)