Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Kiran vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:49949) on 19 November, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:49949]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12763/2020

 Smt. Kiran W/o Shri Budha Ram Chaudhary, Aged About 60
 Years, R/o Plot No. 12, Roop Nagar, Paota C Road, Jodhpur
 (Raj.).
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
 1.        Union Of India, Through Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
           Limited (HPCL) (A Government Of India Enterprises),
           Registered Office 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai
           (Maharashtra) - 400 020.
 2.        The    Deputy    General        Manager         -       Retail,   Hindustan
           Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), Regional Head
           Office, Diesel Shed Road, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur
           (Rajasthan) - 342 005.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Sudhir Saruparia
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Aniket Tater with
                                  Mr. Ojas Gupta



                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

19/11/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of

impugned letter dated 10.11.2020 (Annexure-12) whereby the

petitioner's application for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership

stood rejected.

2. The facts are that in pursuance to Advertisement dated

14.12.2018, the petitioner applied on 27.12.2018 through online

mode. The last date specified for submission of application was

12.01.2019. Admittedly, the petitioner applied in Other Backward

Class (for short 'OBC') category. However, she did not possess a

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 04:45:56 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49949] (2 of 7) [CW-12763/2020]

valid OBC certificate on the date of applying i.e. 27.12.2018. She

applied for issuance of OBC certificate on 02.01.2019 and the

same was issued to her on 28.01.2019.

3. A provisional list of selected candidates was issued by the

respondent Corporation on 25.01.2020 and when called upon, the

petitioner submitted all the relevant documents including OBC

certificate, on 03.02.2020. However, the candidature of the

petitioner stood rejected on the count that she did not possess a

valid OBC certificate on the date of submission of application i.e.

27.12.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the

Brochure governing the allotment of Dealership in question, the

certificates/documents for Eligibility/Specific Eligibility criteria

were required to be submitted by the selected candidates within

ten days of the intimation. Further, additional ten days' time was

to be granted in case the selected candidate failed to submit the

applicable certificate/document. It is only if the candidate failed to

provide the requisite document within that additional time that

his/her candidature could have been rejected.

5. Counsel submitted that the petitioner submitted all the

requisite documents within a period of ten days of intimation to

her and hence, her candidature could not have been rejected.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent Corporation

submitted that it was specific condition as per the Brochure that

all certificates/documents required for meeting the

Eligibility/Specific Eligibility criteria ought to have been in

possession of the applicant and valid as on the date of application.

Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess a valid OBC certificate

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 04:45:56 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49949] (3 of 7) [CW-12763/2020]

on 27.12.2018, the date on which she applied and hence, OBC

certificate as submitted by her on 03.02.2020 could not have been

considered and her candidature was rightly rejected.

7. While relying upon Bombay High Court judgment in Swati

vs. Government of India & Anr. (Writ Petition No.

1319/2020 and CA/10142 in WP/1319/2020) decided on

29.09.2021, Counsel submitted that a candidate has to be eligible

to apply for Retail Outlet Dealership on the date of application as

per the Brochure of the Petroleum Company.

8. In rejoinder Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a

specific clause appended to Note-1 of Clause-4 provides for grant

of an additional ten days time in cases of Caste Validity Certificate.

The incorporation of the said clause definitely is with an intent to

grant additional ten days time to the selected candidate from the

date of intimation. Meaning thereby, the certificate as submitted

by the petitioner was clearly within the stipulated time and hence,

ought to have been considered.

9. Learned counsel, further while relying upon Hon'ble Apex

Court judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate

Services Selection Board & Anr. [(2016) 4 SCC 754]

submitted that the candidature of the petitioner could not have

been rejected simply on count of she not being in possession of a

caste certificate on the date of application when she submitted the

same within a period of ten days of intimation.

10. Heard the learned counsels. Perused the record.

11. For proper adjudication of the present dispute, the

production of relevant clauses of the Brochure would be relevant.

The Note appended to Note-4 of the Brochure reads as under:-

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 04:45:56 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49949] (4 of 7) [CW-12763/2020]

"Note: with regard to submission of documents by selected candidates:

1. All certificates/documents required for meeting Eligibility/Specific eligibility criteria should be in possession of the applicant and valid as on date of application.

However, certificates issued by Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR), Ministry of Defence, Government of India for Defense personnel can be of a date after the date of application but should be submitted within 10 days of intimation by Oil Company.

Wherever Caste Validity certificate is required, the same shall be submitted by the selected candidate within additional 10 days of stipulated time specified by the concerned State Govt. for issuance of such certificate (from the date of intimation to the selected candidate by the OMC).

2. In case certificates submitted by the applicants issued by various Govt. Officials are not as per the given formats, the applicants would not be made ineligible if the contents are as per Corporation's requirements.

3. Applicable certificate/documents for Eligibility/Specific eligibility criteria would be required to be submitted by the selected candidate within 10 days of intimation (after draw of lots/bidding process).

Additional 10 days' time shall be given in case the selected candidate fails to submit the applicable certificates/documents. In case the selected candidate fails to provide applicable certificates/documents within this time period, his/her candidature would be rejected under intimation through SMS/e-mail.

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 04:45:56 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49949] (5 of 7) [CW-12763/2020]

4. The selected candidate would be given opportunity to provide the rectified/corrected documents under rectifiable deficiency within 21 days' time. If the selected candidate fails to provide the required corrected/rectified certificates/documents, within 21 days, his/her candidature would be rejected under intimation through SMS/e-mail."

12. A conjoint reading above clause 1 and the proviso as

appended to it, makes it crystal clear that although it is a requisite

condition that the candidate ought to be in possession of the

document required for meeting Eligibility/Specific Eligibility Criteria

on the date of application, but then, in cases where a Caste

Validity Certificate is required, it could have been submitted by the

selected candidate within additional ten days of stipulated time

specified by the concerned State Government for issuance of such

certificate (from the date of intimation to the selected candidate

by the OMC).

13. Further as per above Clause-3, even if a candidate fails to

submit any requisite document within a period of ten days of

intimation, he/she is entitled for additional ten days' time. It is

only on the failure to submit the requisite document within that

additional period that the candidature can be rejected. Meaning

thereby, any candidate not possessing the requisite document is

entitled to submit the same subsequently although within a period

of ten days of the intimation.

14. In the specific opinion of this Court, the insertion of a specific

provision for the Caste Validity Certificate in the Brochure

definitely is with an intent to provide additional ten days time to a

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 04:45:56 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49949] (6 of 7) [CW-12763/2020]

selected candidate keeping into consideration the fact that the

said certificate might take time in issuance by the competent

authority.

15. So far as Clause-1 requiring the candidate to be in

possession of requisite documents on the date of application is

concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the same definitely would

not apply in the case of Caste Validity Certificate, as the same has

been inserted as an exception to the said clause in the Brochure

itself. Had that not been the intention, no specific clause for Caste

Validity Certificate would have been inserted.

16. Further, as held by the Delhi High Court in Pushpa vs.

Government, NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2009 SCC Online Del 281)

and affirmed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya

(supra), in order to be considered for a reserved post, the

requirement is that a person should belong to that category.

Therein the Court observed that if a person is of a Scheduled

Caste, he is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category

because of any other event happening at a later stage. A

certificate issued by the competent authority to this effect is only

an affirmation of fact, which is already in existence. The purpose

of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the

assertion made by the candidate that he belongs to Scheduled

Caste category and act thereon by giving benefit to such

candidate for his belonging to Scheduled Caste category. The

Court therein further observed as under:-

"... ... ... It is not that petitioners did not belong to SC category prior to 30-6-1998 or that acquired the status of being SC only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 04:45:56 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49949] (7 of 7) [CW-12763/2020]

position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30-6-1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved."

17. Applying above ratio to the present matter, it is not the case

of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner did not belong to

OBC category or that the certificate as submitted by her was not

valid. The only reason for rejection of petitioner's candidature was

that she did not possess the said certificate on the date of

application. In the specific opinion of this Court, the said reason is

totally in contravention to ratio laid down in Ram Kumar

Gijroya's case (supra). The impugned letter dated 10.11.2020

(Annexure-12) therefore deserves to be and is hereby quashed

and set aside.

18. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent Corporation is

directed to consider the OBC certificate as submitted by the