High Court of Meghalaya
Smti Radhika Koch vs Union Of India on 7 March, 2024
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
Serial No. 04
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 46 of 2024
Date of Decision: 07.03.2024
Smti Radhika Koch,
D/o Shri Bhiteswar Koch
R/o Diglpara, Garobadha,
P.O. Garobadha, P.S. Tura
West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Union of India
Represented by the
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,
Government of India, New Delhi
2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
12/E&F, Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade,
Post Box No. 19949, Mumbai-400005.
3. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Head of Territory Office, Holding No. 253
Ward No. 2, Lower New Colony,
Laitumkhrah, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District
Meghalaya. ..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. E. Nongbri, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Rumthao, Adv.
vice Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI (For R 1)
Mr. S. Jindal, Adv. with
Mr. I. Kharmujai, Adv. (For R 2&3)
Page 1 of 4
_______________________________________________________
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The grievance of the writ petitioner which has been
brought before this Court by way of the instant writ petition, is the
rejection of her candidature for appointment as a Retail Outlet
Dealer, under the respondents Nos. 2 & 3.
2. It has been submitted by Mr. E. Nongbri, the learned
counsel for the petitioner that on the advertisement being floated, the
writ petitioner had tendered her application, which was accepted. In
the course of the selection process, she was selected after the draw of
lots and was accordingly informed by a communication dated
16.12.2023. However, it is submitted that due to some defects in the
documents uploaded, and the petitioner on being aware of the same,
had attempted to upload the required documents, but was not
successful. Thereafter, on being un-successful, the writ petitioner it
appears, had even approached the respondents Nos. 2 & 3 personally
with the documents, which were not accepted and the same resulted
in the rejection of her candidature on 23.02.2024.
3. Mr. S. Jindal, the learned counsel for the respondents
Nos. 2 & 3, submits that the entire system being automated, the
respondents Nos. 2 & 3, are not in a position to accept any physical
documents, as the same is the directive from the Ministry. He,
however, submits that since the writ petitioner had preferred a
representation dated 27.02.2024, the same will be taken into
consideration, if any latitude can be granted to the petitioner since
she was a successful applicant, to be reconsidered.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
examination of the materials on record, it appears that the situation as
has happened was because of the technical difficulties experienced
by the petitioner, as also the fact that the same being managed
through a dedicated portal, the corrected documents could not be
accepted physically by the respondents Nos. 2 & 3.
5. Be that as it may, the fact that no mala fide can be
attributed to the action of the petitioner, the respondents Nos. 2 & 3
are therefore, directed to dispose of the representation which has
been filed, within a period of 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt
of this order.
6. During the pendency of the representation, it is expected
that the respondents Nos. 2 & 3, will not settle the Retail Outlet with
any other party.
7. With the above directions, this matter stands closed and is
disposed of.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
07.03.2024
"V. Lyndem-PS"
