Ex-Corporal V.V. Palanisamy ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 531 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition was taken up for disposal and counsel for the parties were heard on 22.3.2002 and 3.4.2002.

2. Petitioner, a former Corporal, who retired from the Indian Air Force, after rendering 15 years pensionable service, has preferred this writ petition.

3. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to the respondents to release/allot a petrol pump to him in compliance with Memorandum No. 19011/50/95-IOC dated 1.4.1997 of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Office. A further direction is sought to respondent No. 4, Director General of Re-settlement to issue eligibility Certificate to the petitioner, as applied for vide letter dated 29.8.2000. Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to the respondents to subscribe all the 11 vacancies for defense personnel and not to allot them in general category, as is claimed to have been done in the past.

4. Petitioner, an aspirant for allotment of petrol pump, has the grievance that respondent No. 4 i.e. Director General Resettlement has not forwarded his application for allotment to the Indian Oil Corporation, despite the petitioner being clearly eligible in terms of the policy or guide-lines of the Indian Oil Corporation.

5. Petitioner places reliance on the eligibility criteria for award of dealership/distributorship under the defense personnel category (DC). Reference is invited to page 24 of the paper book, where the defense personnel category is defined as under:-

"For the purpose of this application "DC" shall mean and include defense Personnel/their widows/dependants sponsored by Director General of Resettlement, Ministry of defense, Government of India."

The eligibility criteria then goes on to give the particulars required in the application. Clause 11 provides that Candidates sponsored by DGR (Director General of Resettlement) will only be called for the interview.

6. Petitioner states that he duly applied pursuant to the advertisement published in "The Hindu" dated 16.7.2000, to the Director General of Resettlement for issuance of eligibility certificate so that he could be appointed as one of the petrol retail outlet dealer in the State of Tamil Nadu. Petitioner claims in the application that he had earlier started textile manufacturing business but was facing labour problem and hence wanted to start new business. Petitioner claims that as per Office Memorandum bearing No. 19011/50/95-IOC dated 1.4.1997, 8 per cent of oil product agencies i.e. LPG Kerosene Oil Agency, petrol pump etc., are reserved for the following categories of defense personnel:-

(a) Widows/dependents of posthumous gallantry award winners;

(b) war Widows/dependents of those who died in war;

(c) war disabled (minimum disabled 50 per cent);

(d) widows/dependants of those who died in harness due to attributable causes; and

(e) defense personnel disabled in peace due to attributable causes (minimum disabled 50 per cent).

7. Petitioner claims that despite there being 40 vacancies in the State of Tamil Nadu, the number of applications in the above categories received by the Director General of Resettlement were only 8. Petitioner claims that these vacancies were de-reserved by respondent No. 4, Director General of Resettlement for allotment to the civilians in connivance with the State Government without deserving defense personnel like the petitioner being considered.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C.M. Khanna, urged that it was not permissible for respondent No. 4 to go beyond Indian Oil Corporation's guide-lines and decline to forward the petitioner's case and allow the reservations and quota for defense personnel to lapse or be de-reserved for civilians. He submits that once petitioner is recognized as a defense personnel, then the Director General of Resettlement was obliged to forward his case for consideration to Indian Oil Corporation, subject to fulfillment of other criteria. The Director General of Resettlement cannot impose its own policy or guide-lines to scuttle the recommendations and deny the issuance of eligibility certificate. The Director General of Resettlement cannot in any manner restrict the scope of Indian Oil Corporation's guide-lines by either setting up its own criteria or restricting the criteria prescribed by the Indian Oil Corporation's guide-lines. He submits that as a result of the actions of the Director General of Resettlement, eligible and genuine aspirants from the defense services are not getting recommendations while vacancies are being surrendered and given to the civilians. He submits that this has resulted in 8 per cent quota, reserved for defense personnel, not being fulfillled.

Counsel for the petitioner urges that the norms by the Director General of Resettlement in para 3.3, only provide for inter se priority between defense personnel. The same cannot be used for excluding a person, like the petitioner, who happens to be a Corporal and falls within the definition of defense personnel, though not having any disability, as required therein. Learned counsel also referred to a large number of young defense personnel, who are retired at an early age and rendered unemployed being left without vocation and the desirability of settling them.

9. Respondents in the counter affidavit filed by the Director in Directorate General Resettlement have refuted the allegations of any collusion between the Director General of Resettlement and the State Government in allotment. It has been clarified that the allegation of surrender of the quota to the civilians or general categories is not correct. In case sufficient number of applicants from the various categories, as specified in para 3.3, of defense personnel, are not available then vacancies are required to be re-advertised three times and even if they remain unfulfilled then they are uniformly distributed in other locations for defense personnel. It is stated that the Director General of Resettlement has taken a policy decision that it is only those defense personnel, who fall in the categories, as specified in para 3.3, are eligible for allotment in the 8 per cent category for defense personnel for these vacancies. This policy is uniformly implemented and applied without exception. It is further stated that the Director General of Resettlement has several other schemes for resettlement of able bodies and other defense personnel, who do not fall in the categories, as noticed above. However, the petrol site or dealership from Indian Oil Corporation being prime vocations have been confined to those, who suffer from these disabilities and deserve special consideration among the defense personnel.

10. The present writ petition is confined to the individual grievance of the petitioner and is not in the nature of public interest litigation. It goes without saying that Director General of Resettlement would take care to ensure that in case there are not sufficient number of applicants in the categories falling in para 3.3 then the said vacancies are re-advertised and if there are not sufficient number of candidates then either they are distributed in locations, where defense personnel falling in the said categories are available and the defense quota is not allowed to lapse. In any case, as noted above, petitioner himself is not eligible for allotment under the policy and, therefore, cannot make a grievance of his name not being forwarded or against non-issuance of eligibility certificate. Counsel for the respondents have placed on record the Self Employment Information Booklet, which gives the schemes and various subsidies that are available for different categories of ex-servicemen, their widows and dependants. The said booklet gives the eligibility for various schemes. There are schemes available for ex-servicemen entrepreneur for setting up small scale industries, allotment of milk dairy booths, vegetable booths etc. Petitioner is free to seek resettlement or vocation as per the numerous schemes available for retired defense Personnel, not suffering from any disabilities.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on A.K. Kraipak and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham reported at to submit that the action of the respondent was liable to be struck down, as arbitrary and un-reasonable. The said judgments have no application in the present case. As noticed earlier, the present writ petition is not in the nature of public interest litigation and is confirmed to the individual grievance of the petitioner, who does not meet the eligibility criteria. Petitioner sought a direction that 11 vacancies be subscribed for the defense personnel and be not allotted in the general categories. Respondents in the counter affidavit have denied that the said vacancies are being allotted in the general categories. Rather, respondents have submitted that the oil companies are required to re-advertise three times in case there is no response from eligible candidates. The oil companies can de-reserved these vacancies only after providing equal number of alternative locations, which are to be accepted and concurred by the Director General of Resettlement. Hence sufficient safeguards are provided to protect the interest of defense personnel.

12. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.