IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.22739 of 2009 BETWEEN Lakshmi Narayana Puli. ... PETITIONER AND Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: MR. TOOM SRINIVAS MR. T.NIRANJAN REDDY The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner holds B. Tech qualification as well as Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and Computer Applications. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and has applied in response to notification of the first respondent dated 01.10.2007 for being appointed as Distributor for Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) for the location Yerraguntla, Kadapa District. Petitioner states that his candidature was assessed and he was interviewed also on 23.12.2008 and was awarded marks as per the parameters prescribed for each category, such as, educational qualification, age, experience, business ability/acumen etc. The controversy in the writ petition is, however, confined to the marks awarded to the petitioner in the category of experience where he was awarded 3.7 marks as against maximum of 4 marks. 2. Based on performance, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.1 in the selection list, but he received a letter dated 10.03.2009 from the first respondent informing that his name has been struck down from the panel and later the petitioner learnt that on a complaint made by the impleaded third respondent his name was struck down. Since the name of the petitioner was deleted without notice and without any enquiry, behind his back, he approached this Court by way of WP.No.6694 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of on 09.04.2009 by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 10.03.2009 with a liberty to the respondents to issue show cause notice to the petitioner with an opportunity to submit explanation and then proceed with the enquiry as per law. 3. Petitioner, thereafter, submitted a detailed explanation dated 30.05.2009 reiterating that the experience certificate enclosed by him was genuine and the said experience certificate issued by M/s. Sreenivasa Gas Agency certifying that the petitioner worked from January 2003 to October 2005 cannot be said to be an incorrect information and therefore, cancelling the petitioner’s selection in spite of being at Sl.No.1 in the select list was not justified. The second respondent was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who obtained a letter dated 13.02.2009 from the said agency, whereunder the said experience certificate was accepted as issued by them but it was stated that the petitioner did not work with the said agency but the certificate was given only on petitioner’s insistence and though there is no documentary proof of attendance and wage register with regard to petitioner, the said agency stated that earlier certificate was given out of ignorance. 4. The second respondent has examined the petitioner on 07.08.2009 and thereafter, once again asked the said agency to confirm it’s certificate, who have reiterated their reply dated 13.02.2009 under their further reply dated 08.08.2009 denying that the petitioner ever worked with them either on temporary or permanent basis and his claim that he was paid Rs.5,000/- during the said period is not correct and after the conclusion of enquiry, therefore, the order of deleting the name of the petitioner was confirmed by the impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2009. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not taken into consideration the explanation of the petitioner during the enquiry and merely the absence of his name from the attendance or wage register, would not by itself lead to an inference that he had not worked in the said agency. Learned counsel for the petitioner also laid stress that the initial certificate of the said agency, which was filed along with petitioner’s application, certifying petitioner’s experience as well as two subsequent letters of the said agency dated 13.02.2009 and 08.08.2009 do not disown the initial certificate and the said agency has accepted that the experience certificate was issued by them. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the genuineness of the certificate was not in issue and as such, merely because there is no documentary evidence of petitioner’s working with the said agency, it cannot be said that the experience claimed by the petitioner is non-existent. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the assessment parameters with regard to experience, which categorically state that the marks will be awarded based on information given in the application and on answers to leading questions in connection with experience claimed during interview. He, therefore, submits that performance at the interview where petitioner was awarded 3.7 marks out of 4 marks clearly shows that the certificate by itself is not decisive and therefore, the deletion of petitioner’s name from the select list is wholly unjustified. 6. Learned counsel for the first respondent corporation, on the contrary, submits that the verifications made by the corporation clearly establish that the certificate of experience from the said agency produced by the petitioner along with the application was found to be incorrect and the same was confirmed by the certifying agency itself in their two subsequent letters dated 13.02.2009 and 08.08.2009 and therefore, applying clause 17 of the terms and conditions of eligibility, the declaration given by the petitioner in the application for distributorship having been found to be wrong, his candidature cannot be considered and he was held ineligible for LPG distributorship. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the enquiry proceedings where specific questions were put to the petitioner on the said aspect with reference to replies of the said agency where he allegedly worked. Learned counsel also relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in SHIV KANT YADAV v. INDIAN OIL CORP. AND OTHERS[1] as well as B.R. CHOWDHURY v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS[2] where in similar circumstances where allotment of dealership was found to be vitiated by suppression of material information as well as the factual misstatement in the declaration given by the applicant was found sufficient for cancellation of candidature of such candidate. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to notice the undertaking, which the petitioner has given while applying for the distributorship and clauses (16) and (17) thereof are relevant. Clause 16 to the extent necessary, to be extracted, is as follows: “…On verification by the Oil Company if it is found that the information given by me/us is incorrect/false/misrepresented then my/our candidature will stand cancelled and I/We will be declared not eligible for LPG Distributorship” Clause 17 reads as follows: “I, P. Lakshmi Narayana, daughter of/son of/wife of Shri P. Narasimhulu hereby confirm that the information given above is true and correct. Any wrong information/misrepresentation/suppression of facts will make me ineligible for this LPG distributorship.” 8. The first respondent considered petitioner’s candidature on the basis of the certificate of the said agency dated 20.06.2007, which certified that the petitioner was appointed as Showroom Supervisor on temporary basis from January 2003 to October 2005. On verification, however, by the second respondent, the same agency has given the clarification dated 13.02.2009 clarifying that though the petitioner has not worked with the said agency, on petitioner’s request and insistence, the earlier certificate was given unknowingly without realising the importance of experience certificate. It was also confirmed that there is no documentary proof of petitioner working with the said agency in the above period. During the subsequent enquiry conducted, the same agency once again confirmed under their letter dated 08.08.2009 that the petitioner was visiting their office, though he had not worked in any capacity either on temporary or permanent basis nor he was paid any amount. These certificates were considered by the second respondent – enquiry officer and based thereon, the order of rejection of petitioner’s candidature was passed. The information given by the petitioner by way of initial certificate of experience, therefore, was clearly found to be incorrect and wrong. Clauses (16) and (17), referred to above, therefore, clearly cover the situation where the information furnished by the candidate is found to be incorrect on verification. It is, no doubt, true that the said agency confirmed that it had given the initial certificate of experience but later clarified the same on two different occasions that the said certificate was incorrect and did not convey factually correct information. Since the petitioner also relies upon the initial certificate of the same agency, it is not permissible to accept the initial certificate and reject the subsequent two clarifications issued by the very same agency. The experience certificate produced by the petitioner, therefore, was certified to be wrong by the certifying agency itself. 9. The petitioner states that while he was examined in the enquiry on 07.08.2009, on the same day, the second respondent called for further confirmation from the said agency and obtained subsequent letter dated 08.08.2009, smacks of undue interest shown by second respondent and allegation of bias is also attributed against him. I am unable to see any substance in the said contention of bias inasmuch as the certifying agency itself has clarified that the initial certificate was wrong and was factually incorrect. Thus, the petitioner cannot blame the second respondent – enquiry officer alone and attribute bias against him when the agency certifying petitioner’s experience is not supporting the said certificate. 10. In the decision in SHIV KANT YADAV’s case (1 supra) the Supreme Court held that requirement to disclose true and correct facts coupled with the undertaking similar to one, extracted above, clearly establishes that there is a factual misstatement in the declaration made and as such, the cancellation of the candidature was upheld. In the decision in B.R. CHOWDHURY’s case (2 supra) the Supreme Court held that suppression of material information defeated the purpose of seeking such information which has a bearing on the selection. In the present case also, the petitioner secured selection by giving incorrect information about the experience gained by him at the said agency and on verification when the said experience claimed was found to be incorrect, the action of the first respondent in deleting petitioner’s name from the select list cannot be found fault with. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 25, 2011 DSK [1] (2007) 4 SCC 410 [2] AIR 2004 SC 2770