Rajasthan High Court
Pushpendra Singh vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Lmt on 2 March, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9802/2014
Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Ram Sahay, Nadbai, District
Bharatpur Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Through Territory Manager
Lpg Territory, Sp-Ii, Raod No. 14, V.k.i. Area, Jaipur -302013
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RK Mathur, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Aditya Mathur, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment / Order
Reserved On 23/02/2022
Pronounced On 02/03/2022
1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the action
of the respondents in not granting LPG distributorship in the State
of Rajasthan at the location Halena, District Bharatpur under Rajiv
Gandhi LPG Vitrak Scheme and has challenged the order dated
01/08/2014 whereby candidature of the petitioner, after selection,
has been cancelled on account of the fact that he did not belong to
Other Backward Class (OBC) category as per the advertisement.
2. Brief facts which have come out from the writ petition are
that an advertisement was published by the respondents on
18/02/2013 to award distributorship of LPG at Halena in District
Bharatpur in the OBC category. The petitioner, under the
(2 of 5) [CW-9802/2014]
impression that he falls under OBC category, applied for the
distributorship on 21/03/2013. Through a lottery draw conducted
on 19/12/2013, the petitioner was selected for allotment of LPG
distributorship. A formal letter of allotment of distributorship was
also issued to the petitioner by the respondents on 20/01/2014
with direction to deposit Rs.20,000/- through Demand Draft in
favour of respondents.
3. The cause and controversy in the matter arose on
21/02/2014 when field verification process was completed and the
OBC certificate of the petitioner was verified wherein it was found
that the OBC certificate was not in the prescribed format and was
not fulfilling the criteria as desired and specified in the terms and
conditions of the advertisement. Accordingly, vide order dated
01/08/2014, the distributorship was cancelled on account of the
fact that the petitioner does not have eligibility of OBC status as
desired and the sum of Rs.20,000/- deposited by the petitioner
with the application form was forfeited.
4. The petitioner indisputably belongs to OBC as he belongs to
'Jat' community but as per the Appendix-F the petitioner has made
a statement that he belongs to OBC as specified by Government of
India. The mandate as well as requirement was qua the State
certificate. On the cut-off date i.e. 31/03/2013, as per the
applicable notification marked as Annexure R/1 dated 27/10/1999
at serial no.58 it was provided that 'Jat except in Bharatpur and
Dholpur districts were eligible under the OBC category'. The said
category was revised on 04/03/2014 to include all 'Jats'
throughout the State but the said revision was done later to the
cut-off date of 31/03/2013.
(3 of 5) [CW-9802/2014]
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that
the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 17/03/2015
passed in Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India :(2015)4 SCC
697, had set aside the notification whereby the OBC quota
included 'Jat' community in question. For the reasons stated in the
said Apex Court judgment, the respondents' counsel submitted
that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as no
reservation and benefit of OBC category and eligibility goes in
favour of the petitioner.
6. Respondents' counsel also relied upon a Judgment rendered
by the Division Bench of this Court dated 10/08/2015 passed in
Ratan Lal Bagri and Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan and
Ors. :2016(1) CDR 291 (Raj.) wherein the benefit of OBC has
been denied to the 'Jats' in the State List of OBC.
7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
U.P. vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Ors. :AIR 2020 (SC) 5215
and submitted that the principles of audi-alteram-partem are
required to be followed when any prejudice is caused to the
petitioner. He further relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in Allied Motors Ltd. vs. Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd.: AIR 2012(2) SCC 1 wherein it was observed
that the principles of audi-alteram-partem, procedural law as well
as guidelines are required to be followed.
8. On consideration of the contentions made by respective
counsels, going through the records of the case and the
judgments cited at bar, it is analyzed that as per the
advertisement as well as the terms, conditions and guidelines
thereto, the petitioner was required to be eligible under the
(4 of 5) [CW-9802/2014]
category of OBC. In Appendix-F, the petitioner misrepresented
and showed his eligibility as an OBC category candidate as per the
guidelines of Government of India which was neither appropriate
nor desired. On the cut-off date i.e. 31/03/2013, 'Jats' (except in
Bharatpur and Dholpur) were only eligible under the OBC category
and therefore, falling under the exceptional category on the cut-
off date, the petitioner was not eligible.
9. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court
have held the prospective notifications, including the 'Jats' of
Bharatpur and Dholpur districts under the OBC category, as
unconstitutional and bad in law.
10. The judgments cited by the petitioner for violation of
principles of natural justice are not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case as firstly, the petitioner has
misrepresented before the respondents by giving wrong
information in Appendix-F. Secondly, the letter of cancellation of
candidature with reasons was duly served upon him and thirdly,
the cancellation can be made without giving any opportunity of
hearing. Lastly, this Court has given ample opportunities to the
petitioner to reflect that he falls under OBC category and is eligible
qua the advertisement on the cut-off date or at a later stage but
the petitioner has failed to justify the same. The only argument
advanced on behalf of the petitioner is pertaining to the
procedural irregularity.
11. Once the substantive eligibility under the OBC category is not
made out by the petitioner, the procedural faults cannot override
the same.
12. For the reasons stated above, no case is made out in favour
of the petitioner and the writ petition being devoid of merit is
(5 of 5) [CW-9802/2014]
accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of
in above terms.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Raghu/53
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
