Delhi High Court
Lovish Health Care Pvt. Ltd. vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 24 September, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9561/2009
LOVISH HEALTH CARE PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanat Kumar and Ms. Poonam
Gulia, Advocates.
versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.M. Kalra and Mr. Kunal Kalra,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 24.09.2009
1. Rule. With the consent of the parties the matter is finally heard and
disposed of.
2. The issue is limited and relates to interpretation of clause 6 of the
circular dated 15th September, 2008 issued by the Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas making amendments in the guidelines on selection of
dealers/distributors of petroleum products. Clause 6 of the said circular
reads as under:-
"Other existing provisions of the guidelines on
selection of dealership/distributorships of petroleum
products not covered in the above paras will remain the
same. The above amendments in the selection guidelines
will come into effect from the date of issue of this letter.
However, in cases where advertisements have been issued
WPC NO.9561-2009 Page 1
and where interviews have not been held, OMCs may, if
required and if permitted under the terms and conditions
of the advertisement, alter/revise such advertisements in
conformity with the amendments on selection guidelines
introduced in this letter."
3. Clause 6 quoted above stipulates that the circular dated 15th
September, 2008 making amendments in the guidelines on selection of
dealers/distributors of petroleum products is given prospective effect to
selections made on or after date of issue of the circular. However, a limited
retrospective effect is given in cases where an advertisement had already
been issued but interviews had not been held and as per the terms and
conditions of the advertisement, the oil companies were entitled to revise
the selection guidelines.
4. The admitted position is that on 9.11.2007, an advertisement was
issued by respondent No.1 oil company for appointment of LPG
distributorships in Delhi and Haryana. On 10.12.2007 the petitioner had
filed an application for appointment as an LPG Distributor for Uttam Nagar
area under the open category. By letter dated 11.06.2008 the petitioner
was asked to appear before the selection committee on 03.07.2008. The
petitioner and other applicants who had applied for LPG distributorship
appeared before the selection committee and were interviewed on
3.7.2008. Thereafter on 30.7.2008 results were declared. Thus, in the
WPC NO.9561-2009 Page 2
present case, before the circular dated 15th September, 2008 was issued,
the interviews had been held and even results had been declared. In these
circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of respondent
No.1 that circular dated 15th September, 2008 should be made applicable to
the selection procedure adopted pursuant to the advertisement published
on 9.11. 2007 and the interviews held on 3.7.2008 and the results declared
on 30.7.2008.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 oil company states that
fresh interviews are being held and, therefore, circular dated 15th
September, 2008 will apply. By this indirect method the respondent No.1
oil company cannot get over clause 6 of the circular dated 15th September,
2008. Admittedly, selection process was complete when interviews were
held on 3.7.2008 and result was declared on 30.7.2008. It is not the case of
the respondent no.1 oil company that the said selection process was
vitiated or bad in law because of any illegalities or irregularities committed
during the selection procedure. Circular dated 15th September, 2008 has
been given limited retrospective effect in cases where interviews had not
been held before the said date and the advertisement permitted change in
the terms and conditions. It may be noted that the respondent No.1 oil
company has not brought any new advertisement or invited fresh
WPC NO.9561-2009 Page 3
applications. The applicants who had applied earlier pursuant to the
advertisement dated 9.11.2007 and were interviewed on 3.7.2008 and
have already been graded and awarded marks as per list dated 30.7.2008,
are being re-interviewed on the basis of the amended guidelines. The
action of the respondent no. 1 oil company is per se arbitrary and is
contrary to the circular dated 15th September, 2008. Government of India
was conscious of the fact that amendment of the guidelines should be
given prospective effect and limited retrospective effect and discretion
should not be left to the oil companies to pick and choose. This prevented
arbitrariness, misuse of discretion by adopting pick and choose policy.
6. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that they were not
been awarded marks in respect of educational qualifications and age. The
respondent No.1 oil company, has in the counter affidavit admitted that
the petitioner was wrongly not awarded 19 marks. If a mistake has been
made by the respondent No.1, it should be corrected. This cannot be a
ground to cancel the earlier interviews and have fresh interviews.
Cancellation of the earlier panel has to be for some valid reason. The
counter affidavit does not disclose any reason why the earlier selection was
scrapped and fresh interviews are being held.
7. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Selection
WPC NO.9561-2009 Page 4
for the LPG gas distributor of Uttam Nagar, Delhi will be made as per the
interviews held and marks awarded. If any mistake has been made, the
same will be corrected. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will
be no order as to the costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2009
RS
WPC NO.9561-2009 Page 5
