Moumita Podder vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.& Anr

3. We may briefly notice here the facts which are necessary to decide the legal issues raised herein:

7. On 25.05.2004, the appellant received a Registered Letter from the Respondent No.1, calling upon her to appear before the Interview Board on 16.06.2004 at Guwahati. The appellant was asked to bring all the original documents, details of which had been submitted by her in her above said application. On 11.06.2004, the appellant was informed by Depot Manager (Marketing), Kunjaban, Agartala, of the respondent No.1 over telephone that the Survey Team of the respondent No.1 would visit the sites offered by the respective applicants on 12.06.2004 for the purpose of inspection of the land offered by the applicants. Thereafter, on 12.06.2004, the above Depot Manager (Marketing) informed the appellant that the visit of the Survey Team on 12.06.2004 had now been deferred to 14.06.2004. Subsequently, on 14.06.2004, the appellant was informed that the proposed visit of the Survey Team of the respondent No.1 had been cancelled and the appellant would be subsequently 5 informed of the date for the said inspection of land. However, the appellant did not receive any such intimation nor was any inspection ever carried out by the said Survey Team.

8. The appellant has highlighted that the proposed inspection was of paramount significance in ascertaining the desirability of the offered site for setting up the Retail Outlet. The policy of the respondent No.1 stipulated that the technical/commercial suitability of the land offered by the applicants would be ascertained by a team of IOC Officers before the Interview.

9. On 16.06.2004, the interviews were conducted by the respondent No.1 for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealers for the abovementioned location of Ranir Bazar. Nine persons, including the appellant and the Respondent No.2, appeared before the Interview Board. The interview board, upon evaluation of the inter se merits of all the nine applicants, in terms of the policy circular dated 4.9.2003, empanelled three candidates in order of merit. Respondent No.2 is placed at Sl.No.1 in order of merit. The appellant was not amongst the first three candidates and was consequently not empanelled. After the declaration of the result, the site offered by respondent No.2 was verified by respondent No.1 on 29.6.2004. By a communication dated 8.7.2004, respondent No.2 was informed that Letter of Intent had been issued in her favour. 6

18. We may notice here that the Writ Petition (C) No.256 of 2004 filed by Payel Biswas was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Her grievance in the writ petition was against the failure of respondent No.1 to conduct spot verification of the land offered by the candidates 13 including her own. Her candidature was, however, rejected on the ground that her husband is a partner of M/s. Biswas and Sons an existing retail outlet dealing with Petroleum products, which is carrying on such business at Agartala town. She was accordingly held not to be eligible for dealership in terms of Clause 1(c) and (d) of the advertisement. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that she had no locus standi.

30. Having said all that, we may now consider the question as to whether it was necessary for the learned Single Judge to quash the entire selection. We are of the considered opinion, that in the peculiar facts of this case, the learned Single Judge adopted a very pedantic and doctrinaire approach to a problem which in fact, had to be viewed pragmatically. The Learned Single Judge not only failed to take note of 27 the ground realities, but ignored the relevant clauses of the policy circular dated 4th of September, 2003. Under the aforesaid Circular, upon the selection and appointment of respondent No.2 being declared illegal, the entire selection could not have been held to be vitiated. In such circumstances, the Letter of Intent would be issued to the next candidate in the panel of three, in terms of Clause 5.4. This Clause specifically provides that if the letter of intent is cancelled for any reason, it will be given to the next candidate in the merit list. In this case, even such an eventuality would not have arisen, as the candidates at Nos.2 and 3 were not the writ petitioners before the High court. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge needlessly set aside the entire selection. At the same time the Division Bench also committed an error of law, in upholding the selection of respondent No.2.

These observations leave no manner of doubt that the court would be failing in its duty if it does not take due notice of the equitable considerations and mould the relief, to do complete justice between the parties.

37. Both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.