Case: Nikhil S/O Dilipsing Rajput Vs. The Union of India and Others

been advertised certifying that the candidate belongs to Other Backward Classes recognized as OBC by a Resolution / Gazette Notifcation issued by the Government of India (Central Government/ State Government) 6. It is equally undisputed that the note below clause 4 of the Brochure specifcally states that 1. All certifcates/ documents required for meeting Eligibility / Specifc Eligibility Criteria should be in possession of the applicant and valid as on the date of application. 7. It is, therefore, beyond debate that the documents which are to be supplied with the application form and which can be tendered (hard copies) within such period as may be permitted by the company, should be in possession of the applicant on the date of his application, to indicate that when he applied for the R.O. dealership, he was fulflling the eligibility criteria as prescribed by the company. 8. It is, therefore, clear from the rules made applicable by the company that on the date of the application by an interested candidate seeking R.O. dealership, he should be in possession of all the documents required, including the caste certifcate, as the cutof date for considering eligible candidates was 22-12-2018. We have no hesitation in concluding that on 22-12-2018, candidates who possessed these documents and the caste certifcate were eligible and those candidates who did not possess any of the required documents and importantly, the caste certifcate, on the date of application, were obviously ineligible candidates. 9. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits, on the basis of the record, that he had received a communication dated 27-06-2019, by which he was given ten days time for submitting the said documents and for remitting Rs.40,000/- as a security deposit, on-line. He concedes, on the basis of the record, that the petitioner did not have Appendix III B (Advocates letter) along with appendix III A (For ofer of land), as on 22-12-2018, which was the cut-of date for entering applications for R.O. dealership by interested candidates. He frankly submits on the basis of the record that these two documents are dated 03-07-2019 and they were prepared after the petitioner received the communication dated 27- 10-2019, for tendering the said documents. He also submits, on the basis of the record, that the Eligibility Certifcate for OBC category was not in his possession, when he applied on 22-12-2018 and the R.O. dealership at issue, was reserved for candidates belonging to the OBC category. 10. The Company has entered an afdavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and have stated in paragraph No. 04 as under : 04. I say that, there is no dispute regarding the following facts. A. Advertisement dated 25-11-2018 was issued for allotment of Regular and Retail outlet in various parts of Maharashtra, including for location From Pimpalner Post Ofce towards Navapur within 2 M from OBC category. B. Petitioner has fled application on 22.12.2018 and he is declared to be selected for establishment of dealership. Clause No.9 of the application states that, the Advocate of the applicant has certifed the land to be belonging to Group-1. C. The applicant has ofered land owned by his father Mr. Dilipsing Rajput (page 17). D. In the draw of lots held on 26.06.2019. The petitioner was successful and was informed of his preliminary selection, subject to compliance of norms (Page 20). E. Petitioner submitted opinion of Advocate Mr. Dnyaneshwar Ekhande, dated 03.07.2019 (page29) and afdavit of his father dated 03.07.2019 (page 30 to 34). F. The petitioner has submitted caste certifcate of OBC category dated 02.07.2019. G. Candidature of the petitioner came to be cancelled by the communication dated 10.01.2020, candidature of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that, the caste certifcate submitted is later than the date of advertisement and Appendix III-A and III-B are of a date after the date of fling of the application. H. Petitioner possesses certifcate of belonging to Rajput Bhamta (OBC) Caste. However, the same is issued on 02.07.2019 (Page 36). I. The certifcate at page 12 of petition is dated 28.08.2006. However, the same certifes that, the petitioner is belonging to Vimukta Jati and there is no certifcation of OBC status. 11. It is further submitted in the afdavit-in-reply in paragraph Nos. 04 (2nd paragraph with the same number) and 05 as under : 04. I say that, as the petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirement of possessing the OBC certifcate, as applicable on the date of submission of the application, the candidature of the petitioner came to be cancelled. The petitioner has relied upon the earlier certifcate dated 28.08.2006. However, said certifcate is recognizing the petitioner as a person belonging to Vimukta Jati. Furthermore, subsequent certifcate submitted by the petitioner is secured after submission of application. 05. I say that, Clause (4)(vi)(b) of the Brochure for selection specifcally contemplates that, the candidates will be required to submit as and when advised by the Oil Company, a certifcate issued by the competent authority notifed by the Government of India and / or by the concerned State in which the location has been advertised certifying that the candidate belongs to Other Backward Classes recognized as OBC by a Resolution / Gazette Notifcation issued by the Government of India (Central Government / State Government) 12. In some what similar facts, in Writ Petition No.9974 of 2019 fled by Rajendra Bapurao Hande Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Another, the learned Division Bench of this Court has noted that some of the documents, that were required as a part of the eligibility criteria on the date of entering the application by the interested candidate, were not available with the petitioner and those were prepared after the cut-of date. This Court, therefore, held that such a candidate would not be eligible. In Writ petition No. 5812 of 2019, fled by another similarly placed candidate Navnath s/o Shankar Badage Vs. Indian Oil Corporation, Ltd. and Another, the learned Division Bench of this Court delivered an order on 18-06-2019, holding the same view.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]5. It is undisputed that, clause (4)(vi)(b) of the Brochure for the selection of the candidates for the R.O. dealership specifcally provides that the candidates will be required to submit as and when advised by the Oil Company, a certifcate issued by the competent authority notifed by the Government of India and/or by the concerned State in which the location has been advertised certifying that the candidate belongs to Other Backward Classes recognized as OBC by a Resolution / Gazette Notifcation issued by the Government of India (Central Government/ State Government)6. It is equally undisputed that the note below clause 4 of the Brochure specifcally states that 1. All certifcates/ documents required for meeting Eligibility / Specifc Eligibility Criteria should be in possession of the applicant and valid as on the date of application.7. It is, therefore, beyond debate that the documents which are to be supplied with the application form and which can be tendered (hard copies) within such period as may be permitted by the company, should be in possession of the applicant on the date of his application, to indicate that when he applied for the R.O. dealership, he was fulflling the eligibility criteria as prescribed by the company.8. It is, therefore, clear from the rules made applicable by the company that on the date of the application by an interested candidate seeking R.O. dealership, he should be in possession of all the documents required, including the caste certifcate, as the cutof date for considering eligible candidates was 22-12-2018. We have no hesitation in concluding that on 22-12-2018, candidates who possessed these documents and the caste certifcate were eligible and those candidates who did not possess any of the required documents and importantly, the caste certifcate, on the date of application, were obviously ineligible candidates.12. In some what similar facts, in Writ Petition No.9974 of 2019 fled by Rajendra Bapurao Hande Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Another, the learned Division Bench of this Court has noted that some of the documents, that were required as a part of the eligibility criteria on the date of entering the application by the interested candidate, were not available with the petitioner and those were prepared after the cut-of date. This Court, therefore, held that such a candidate would not be eligible. In Writ petition No. 5812 of 2019, fled by another similarly placed candidate Navnath s/o Shankar Badage Vs. Indian Oil Corporation, Ltd. and Another, the learned Division Bench of this Court delivered an order on 18-06-2019, holding the same view.