Allahabad High Court
Smt. Shiv Kumari vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And ... on 6 December, 2013
Bench: Arun Tandon, Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35585 of 2012
Petitioner :- Smt. Shiv Kumari
Respondent :- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirvikar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- Prakash Padia,Rakesh Kumar,S.C.
CONNECTED WITH
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 55085 of 2012
Petitioner :- Smt. Meena
Respondent :- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- P. Padia,S.C.
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
These two writ petitions have been filed by Smt. Shiv Kumari and Smt. Meena respectively. Both were applicants in respect of the grant of dealership under the Kisan Seva Kendra Scheme in terms of the advertisement published by the Indian Oil Corporation. The application of both the petitioners were processed and select panel was declared on 11.8.2010 in the said panel Smt. Meena was empaneled at serial No. 1 with 90.94 marks while Smt. Shiv Kumari was empaneled at serial No. 2 with 70.99 marks. Under the select panel itself it was provided that if person has any objections in respect of awarding of the marks, he may represent before the authority concerned within 30 days. Smt. Shiv Kumari filed her objection in respect of awarding of marks to Smt. Meena under various heads and it was her case that there has been a material irregularity in awarding of marks to Smt. Meena which has adversely effected the result of the selection.
We may record that in the first panel notified Smt. Meena was empaneled at serial No. 1 while Smt. Shiv Kumari was empaneled at serial No. 2. The objections of the petitioner were considered and as a matter of the fact, under the revised panel notified on 7.6.2012, the marks awarded to Smt. Meena were reduced to 57.83 marks. Surprisingly despite there being no objection with regard to the marks awarded to the Smt. Shiv Kumari, in the subsequent select panel she was shown as ineligible only on the ground that there was an error in the affidavit filed by her. It is against this order that Smt. Shiv Kumari has filed writ petition being writ petition No. 35585 of 2012 and the connected writ petition No. 55085 of 2012 has been filed by Smt. Meena Kumari on the allegation that she is possessed of the requisite land in terms of the advertisement and therefore reduction of the marks earlier awarded to her under the heading of facility of the land and infrastructure have wrongly been scored out. It is her case that as against 33 marks earlier awarded, she has now been awarded zero marks. Therefore, both Smt. Shiv Kumari and Smt. Meena Kumari challenge the revised notification on their respective grounds.
We may deal with the contentions raised on behalf of Smt Shiv Kumari first. On being asked the learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation points out that in the affidavit which was filed by Smt. Shiv Kumari the name of her husband has been transcribed as Ratan Lal when in fact it should have been Ratan Pal Singh.
Learned counsel for Smt. Shiv Kumari points out that this objection is clearly an after thought because at the first instance no such objection was taken and the petitioner was not only interviewed but was also empaneled at serial No. 2 and even otherwise objection taken is hyper technical in nature inasmuch as absolutely no defects has been found in any of the other attending documents which categorically disclosed the name of the husband of the petitioner as Ratan Pal Singh. The typing error which has crept in the affidavit could have been directed to be corrected instead of penalty of declaring the petitioner ineligible.
Sri Prakash Padia as well as Sri B.B. Paul, counsel for Smt. Meena could not successfully assail what has been contended on behalf of the petitioner except pointing out that there is an error in the affidavit.
We are of the considered opinion that the objection which is being taken qua the affidavit filed by the petitioner in respect of the mistake in the name of her husband is too hyper technical in nature to declare her ineligible at the stage of considering her objections specifically when nobody has come forward to object to the consideration of the claim of Smt. Shiv Kumari and her empanelment at any point of time and the objection in our opinion is hyper technical in nature.
The writ petition filed by Smt. Shiv Kumari is therefore liable to be allowed and she is declared to be eligible for consideration in the matter of grant of dealership.
So far as the grievance raised by the Smt. Meena is concerned we are also of the opinion that before taking decision to reduce the marks from 33 to zero under the heading of facility of infrastructure and land it would be appropriate that Smt. Meena may be permitted to refer to all such evidence which is on record for establishing that she had requisite land at the requisite sites as per the advertisement.
Accordingly we dispose of both the writ petitions by directing that the subsequent result declared on 7.6.2012 stands quashed.
(a) The subsequent result by the Indian Oil Corporation stands quashed. Let Smt. Shiv Kumari be permitted to correct the name of her husband in the affidavit and for that purpose to file fresh affidavit before the Corporation within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order.
(b) Smt. Meena is permitted to file a representation supported by the evidence which has already on record to establish that she is possessed of the land and she satisfies all necessary requirements for the purpose so as be awarded 33 marks.
Respondent No. 1 shall pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the aforesaid two aspects preferably within eight weeks from the date the affidavit is filed by Smt. Shiv Kumari and application is filed by Smt. Meena.
Order Date :- 6.12.2013
Priyanka
