IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1970 of 2009 SUKANYA W/O DILEEP KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE-NAUDIHA PS- KHIZERSARAI,DISTT- GAYA--- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECY. DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM, NEW DELHI 2. I.O.C. LIMITED THROUGH ITS SECY, NEW DELHI. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDANE AREA OFFICE, PATNA INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. 4. SENIOR AREA MANAGER, INDANE AREA OFFICE, SHASHI BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR, EXHIBITION ROAD,PATNA—RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents (IOC): Mr. Kali Das Chatterji & Mr. Amlesh Kr. Verma,Advocates --------- 3 13.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Vide letter dated 15.1.2009 issued by the respondents Indian Oil Corporation petitioner has been told that application for award of Indane Distributorship for Khizirsarai in the District of Gaya advertised on 17.10.2007 stands rejected on the ground that the application form was not supported by any affidavit either in original or by way of photocopy attached thereto. By virtue of this commutation the petitioner has been ousted from the zone of consideration or being invited for interview. A categorical statement has been made stating that the affidavit was duly sworn, made well in time and it was annexed along with the application and probably there is either omission or mischief on the part of the respondents. Learned counsel representing the Indian Oil Corporation has filed a detailed counter affidavit annexing the entire records with a statement that the committee opened the sealed envelope of the petitioner, numbered the pages contained in the said application and found that it was not supported by any - 2 - affidavit. The endorsement was made in this regard right on the top of the application and the fact was reverified and found to be true. Since all the declarations have to be supported by way of affidavit, absence of affidavit being annexed with the application proves fatal for the petitioner. The stand of learned counsel for the respondents is that in view of the above said position the petitioner has been communicated the outcome in terms of annexure-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a very very minor omission and for which the petitioner could not be penalized. Since the selection process is still to be finalized in terms of the advertisement, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to rectify the mistake. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the advertisement cannot be altered by a judicial order by giving special concession to the petitioner and if such type of concession is given to the petitioner then other ineligible candidates will also have to be given the opportunity to correct an otherwise incomplete or invalid applications which stood rejected for one reason or other. No case is made out for interference. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)