IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1190 of 2009 BISHWANATH TIWARY, son of late Jagdeo Tiwari, resident of village + P.O. – Bishambharpur, P.S. – Bishambharpur, District – Gopalganj. Versus 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION through its Managing Director, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra, East, Mumbai – 400 051. 2. The Sr. Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (MD, Idane Area Office, Sahi Bhawan, 1st Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna – 800 001. ----------- 04. 25.03.2010 Petitioner was one of the candidates who was claimant of LPG distributorship. The location in this regard was Kuchaikote, in the district of Gopalganj. The category under which this dealership selection was to be made was reserved for Freedom Fighters. An advertisement was issued in the local daily namely, Hindustan, on 17.10.2007 inviting application from all the eligible candidates under the Freedom Fighters category. There were many a candidates including the present petitioner. Initially 25.9.2008 was the date fixed for holding interview. Interview was held but according to the petitioner, no final results were published. On 29.9.2008 yet another interview letter was issued to the petitioner informing him that a re-interview shall be held on 17.10.2008. This communication is Annexure-2 to the writ application. Thereafter petitioner received yet another communication dated 3.10.2008 that 17.10.2008 interview has been kept in abeyance. Subsequently, a communication dated 17.12.2008 2 was received by the petitioner that the re-interview scheduled to be held stands canceled and the result of the selection stands displayed both in area office as well as on the website of I.O.C. The conduct of the respondents and series of communications raised suspicion in the mind of the petitioner that the selection has not been carried out with due dispassion and fairness. The writ application has been filed challenging the action / inaction on the part of the respondents. Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation was directed to file counter affidavit and shed light on the going on and the series of communications with regard to the interview, re-interview and deferment of the same. According to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the I.O.C. the selection committee had conducted interview on 25.9.2008. The marks could not be finalized because a few of the freedom fighters, who were candidates before the board did not submit copies of the documents which they had annexed with the application form. Looking at their advanced age and the social status they enjoyed, they were given indulgence for production of the same and that is why re-interview was scheduled to be held on 17.10.2008. The communication by the respondents with 3 regard to the second interview on 17.10.2008 is not denied. Something more happened in the meanwhile. One of the candidate namely, Gauri Shaker Pandey made a complaint to the respondent IOC that the selection board has not awarded marks to him under the head of ‘capability to arrange finance’ on the basis of information furnished in the application. This non-award of marks has caused him serious prejudice. Matter was looked into, duly investigated and a report thereof has been annexed as Annexure-C to the Counter Affidavit. The allegation made by Gauri Shanker Pandey with regard to 18 marks was found to be true on re- tabulation. When the marks came to be added to the marks already awarded to Shri Gauri Shanker Pandey, he turned down out to be number one in the merit list. So far as present petitioner is concerned, from Annexure-A, it emerges that he was number three on the merit list. It is the assertion of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation that it is in this background that when final tabulation of the results with regard to interview held on 25.9.2008 was made, the need for verification of the documents in the reinterview for some of those candidates including the present petitioner was not felt. Since evaluation has already been made by the selection committee with regard to all the candidates interviewed on 25.9.2008 and the position 4 having emerged squarely in favour of Gauri Shanker Pandey, respondent Corporation declared the result on the basis of the original selection. That is the reason why company realized the futility of holding yet another interview for the petitioner or such candidates who did not furnish documents in support of their declaration in the first interview. Though from the pleadings in the writ application and the material brought on record certain misgivings had been created in the mind of the petitioner but keeping in view not only the statements made in the counter affidavit but also the material which has been brought on record in support of the doubts raised by the petitioner, the issue must rest. The reasons and explanations are cogent and reasonable. In the totality no arbitrariness having been found and the explanations offered by the respondents being cogent, no case for interference with the final decision and declaration of result is required, more so when dealership has already been commissioned, as informed to the Court by the learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation. The writ has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )