Sushil Kumar vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation ...

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

									     AFR
 
									Court No. 3
 
                 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20631 of 2011.
 
Sushil Kumar.		....		.....		.....		Petitioner.
 
					Versus
 
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others...		Respondents.
 
                                       Present:
 
(Hon. Mr. Justice Amitava Lala & Hon. Mr. Justice Sanjay Misra)
 
                                     Appearance:
 
	      For the Petitioner 	:	Mr. Prabhakar Dwivedi,
 
							Mr. R.D. Yadav.
 
	      For the Respondents	:	Mr. Prakash Padia.
 
                                               ---------
 
Amitava Lala,J.-- The petitioner has filed this writ petition for consideration of his case of appointment as LPG distributorship under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) Scheme at Village Agsoli, District Mahamaya Nagar (Hathras). Though the petitioner is a resident of Village Nihalpur, which is a satellite village of Village Panchayat Agsoli, and the distance between these two villages is 530 meters but admittedly Village Nihalpur is not said to be hamlet of Village Agsoli. However, it is contended by the petitioner that in both i.e. application of the petitioner and reply of the concerned Corporation, the names of both the villages i.e. Nihalpur and Agsoli have been mentioned, as such no where the material facts are suppressed to prove the suitability/eligibility of the candidate. Hence, the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2011 saying that the petitioner is unsuitable, is liable to be quashed. 
 
	On the other hand, the contesting respondents have contented before us that the residence certificate, which was issued earlier, was found to be forged. No certificate had been issued by the Tehsildar.
 
	In support of the contention, the petitioner has further submitted that as per the Self Employment Schemes of Directorate General Resettlement issued by the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Defence, there is an eligibility clause in respect of allotment of oil product agencies under 8% defence quota. In Clause 3 (c) thereof definition of residence has been incorporated, which speaks that candidate can apply on all India basis, meaning thereby the petitioner is not supposed to be the resident of Village Agsoli only, to which learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn our attention to the relevant part of the Manual for Selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV),  which is as follows :
 
"Defence Personnel Category (DP):
 
Defence Personnel means personnel of armed forces (viz. Army, Navy, Air Force) and will cover widows/dependents of those who died in war, war disabled/disable on duty, widows/dependent of those members of Armed Forces who died in harness due to attributable causes and disabled in peace due to attributable causes.
 

 
Candidate applying under this category should produce Eligibility Certificate issued from Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR), Ministry of Defence, and Government of India sponsoring the candidate for the RGGLV for which he/she has applied. Certificate of eligibility issued for one RGGLV is not valid for another RGGLV and therefore a candidate can be considered to be eligible only if he/she has been sponsored for the particular location with reference to current advertisement."
 

 
	However, we find from the copy of eligibility certificate, as annexed, issued by the Jt. Director (Self Employment), Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence for allotment only for the Village Agsoli.
 
	Hence, we do not find any affirmative case in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, let us see whether any scope of consideration is there or not. But before going into such issue, we make certain important observations.
 
	The selection process is required to be made by the selectors. It is well settled by now that the Court will not unnecessarily enter into the selection process conducted by the expert selectors. It is also well settled that if any candidate participates in the selection process, after being failed he can not turn around challenging the same following the principle of approbate and reprobate unless, of course, arbitrary or malafide exercise of power is so apparent that the Court can not shut its eyes. But in connection with the selection of distributorship, godown and many other licences alike, which are required to be given either by Indian Oil Corporation or by Bharat Petroleum Corporation or by Hindustan Petroleum, as the case may be, or under RGGLV scheme of any of such Corporations, in the cases of auction, tender or draw, a peculiar process has been adopted by them. Such process is to declare the name of the drawer or to allot the marks to the respective candidates without judging suitability/eligibility inclusive of availability of land, infrastructure, finance, etc. finally. In the cases of auction and tender, a list of names inclusive of first, second and third empanelled candidates are being published in advance and thereafter scrutiny, enquiry, assessment and examination are started to eliminate such candidates from the empanellement. Even the first empanelled candidate is not the exception. As a result whereof, such aggrieved candidates are invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of redressal of their grievances. The grievances may not be legal but element of legitimate expectation can not be ruled out. Hence, it can not be thrown out immediately like the frivolous petitions but mind has to be applied on the individual merit of the cases, which consumes considerable time of the Court. Therefore, the practice of the Corporation/s is thoroughly discourageable in nature.                                                                                                                                           
 
	Hence, we propose that either no selection or publication of select list will be made in advance without finalisation of scrutiny, enquiry, assessment and examination etc. with regard to candidature of the candidates or in case any prima facie decision is required to be taken for any practical purpose, secrecy about the names of the candidates will be maintained by the Corporation/s before reaching to the finality. If the panel of the selected candidates is disclosed following such process finally, not only the transparency of the selection will be maintained but also number of complaints before the Grievance Cell of the Corporation/s and the litigations before the Court will be reduced substantially. 
 
	Mr. Prakash Padia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, has openly appreciated the stand taken by the Court in this regard. Therefore, it is expected that the respective Corporations will try to follow such procedure as far as practicable. 
 
	Coming back to the merit of the case, we are of the view that when respective Corporation was aware that the petitioner may not be eligible for not having his residence in Village Agsoli, what was the occasion to make him known about the selection or selection made without necessary verification of the records, is unknown to this Court. This type of action on the part of the respective Corporation gives rise to the legitimate expectation of a candidate and being backed by such principle, such candidate applies to the Court to get an order. In such case, it is also very difficult to the writ Court to ignore such grievance on the basis of the principle that the selectors are experts and having participated in the selection, he can not turn around and challenge the same. 
 
	Hence, a fresh advertisement will be issued for the Village Agsoli as early as possible calling upon the eligible candidates for consideration of the cause. There is no bar for the petitioner to participate in the fresh selection if he has his place of residence in the Village Agsoli. But even thereafter, if no suitable candidate is available from the Village Agsoli, then the petitioner's eligibility can be considered by the Corporation giving extended meaning of Village Panchayat Agsoli, which includes many satellite villages inclusive of Village Nihalpur, where petitioner resides.  
 
	With the above observations and order, the writ petition is disposed of, however, without imposing any cost. 
 

 
								(Justice Amitava Lala)
 
      I agree.
 

 
(Justice Sanjay Misra)
 
Dated: 11th April, 2011.
 
Pravin/SKT/-   
 

 
Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.

Hon'ble Sanjay Misra, J.

The writ petition is disposed of, however, without imposing any cost.

Dt./- 11.04.2011.

SKT/-

For judgement and order, see order of the date passed on the separate sheets (four pages).

Dt./- 11.04.2011.

SKT/-