AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
E. Padmanabhan, J.—The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner''s
application bearing No.129178, dated 6.9.2000 after calling him for an interview before making final selection in respect of appointment of petrol-
diesel Retail Dealership for ""Peravoorani Taluk"", Thanjavur District pursuant to Advertisement dated 16.7.2000 in ""The Hindu"".
WMP.Nos:15824 and 15825 of 2002 have been taken out by D.Thiagarajan, who has been selected by the respondents to implead himself
and to fix an early date for the final disposal of the writ petition. Since there is no objection to implead, WMP.No.15824 of 2002 is ordered as
prayed for. Since the WP itself is taken up for final hearing, WMP.No.15825 of 2002 is dismissed.
This court ordered notice of motion on 12.1.2001. The respondents have entered appearance. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first
respondent on behalf of the first and second respondents. The third respondent has also filed a counter affidavit. Apart from the counter affidavits
filed on behalf of the respondents, Mr.M.Gopalan, an officer employed in the third respondent has field a supporting affidavit.
Heard Mr.K.Yamunan, learned counsel appearing for the the petitioner and Mr.P.N.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.S.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent who has been ordered to be impleaded in
WMP.No:15824 of 2002.
The first respondent published a notification inviting applications in the Tamil daily ""Dina Thanthi"" for appointment of Dealers in respect of Petrol
and Diesel Retail Vending. The petitioner who claims that he is eligible, submitted an application duly filled in with the required particulars as well as
annexures. The second respondent acknowledged the receipt of the petitioner''s application. Once again another advertisement was published by
the first respondent on 16.7.2000 in English Daily ""The Hindu"" and in response to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted a fresh
application on 6.9.2000, which was also acknowledged by the second respondent.
On 27.11.2000, the petitioner received a communication from the third respondent, the Oil Selection Board calling upon the petitioner to
appear before the third respondent for interview at Hotel Park Inn, No.14, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai, madras-106. In the said call letter the column
relating to the date and time of interview has not been filled up and it has been left blank. The petitioner therefore was not aware of the date of
interview to appear. The petitioner contacted the first respondent to find out the date and time of interview. The first respondent informed the
petitioner that they will be sending a fresh intimation intimating the date, time and venue of Selection. But no such intimation has been sent to the
petitioner. Hence the petitioner by registered letter dated 21.12.2000 addressed the first and third respondents complaining the blank
communication dated 27.11.2000 and also his contacting the first respondent, who has assured to intimate the date of interview/selection. Though
the said complaint has been acknowledged by the first respondent, till date there is no response. The petitioner came to know that the third
respondent has made provisional selection. But the same has not been finalised and no orders of appointment has been issued. According to the
petitioner the selection by the third respondent is vitiated in that without giving the date, time of the interview the intimation has been sent to the
petitioner. The petitioner has caused a reply and despite that the third respondent has proceeded with the interview which has resulted in the
deprivation of the petitioner, who could not attend the interview. Such an action and the course adopted by the respondents is contrary to law,
violative of Art.14 and discriminatory. Hence the present writ petition.
In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, while setting out the details of advertisement caused and invitation of applications for
dealership, the respondents have practically admitted that in the intimation sent to the petitioner the day, month and year of interview were left
blank and therefore the petitioner was not aware of the date of the interview. The material portion of the counter affidavit, which is relevant, reads
thus:-
The averments contained in paras 7 and 8 of the affidavit are denied. The first respondent at no point of time informed or promised the
petitioner that a fresh intimation letter would be sent to him, since it is not within the purview of the first respondent. When contacted over phone as
admitted by the petitioner himself, all this respondent''s concerned representative did was to direct the petitioner to contact the third respondent for
information. The notice issued by the petitioner was not replied to since it was issued and received much after the selection was completed and the
letter of intent issued to the candidate selected first in the order of merit.
As regards the averments contained in para 9 of the Affidavit are concerned, while the first respondent is not aware as to when the petitioner
came to know of the interview, it is submitted that the selection process is all but over, and what remains is to be done ins only the handling over of
the letter of appointment to the successful candidate. The letter of intent has been issued, and the requirements therein complied with by the
selected candidate.
I deny the averments contained in para 10 of the affidavit. I have been advised to submit hat the inadvertent mistake in not mentioned the date
and time of the interview in writing in the Call letter issued to a candidate and not interviewing him will not vitiate the selection process. In view of
the above, no loss, prejudice or hardship will be caused to he petitioner if the stay is vacated. On the other hand, it is this respondent which will be
made to suffer irreparable loss and hardship if they are asked to interview the petitioner, since, as per the guidelines, the two members of the
Board who sit along with the Chairman, are nominated only within 24 hours before the commencement of the interviews, and their services as
members come to an end as soon as the interviews are over, and it is very difficult and cumbersome to constitute the Board with the same
members again, especially to conduct one interview. Moreover, it is the general public in particular, that will be put to much hardship and loss, as
they will have to continue their wait for the already delayed setting up and commissioning of the outlet. The balance of convenience is also squarely
in favour of the respondents, since the selection process is complete, and what remains is the issue of the letter of appointment to the selected
candidate.
Mr.Gopalan, an officer of the third respondent has also filed an affidavit stating that he had issued call letters to various persons who have
applied for the selection in accordance with the instructions of the third respondent. The said Mr.Gopalan also admitted that due to oversight he
did not specify the date and time of interview for selection in the call letter issued by him. But he adds that when he was contacted over phone, he
had intimated about the date and time of interview.
On behalf of the third respondent also a counter affidavit has been filed. It is stated that the petitioner was intimated the date of interview, he was
aware of the date of interview and thereafter selection was conducted on 13.12.2000. The selection had already been made and the petitioner
cannot maintain the writ petition.
The 4th respondent has also filed an application to vacate the interim order while stating that he has been selected.
points that arise for consideration in this writ petition are:
(i) Whether the call letter without date and time of interview sent to the petitioner vitiates the selection process and the selection?
(ii) Whether the petitioner was aware of the date and time of interview for the selection conducted by the third respondent-Board?
(iii) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled to?
All the points could be considered together.
Concedingly, in the call letter space relating to date and time are left blank. The call letter has been sent by the third respondent/Dealer
Selection Board to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has been called upon to appear on a blank date, blank month, blank year and blank time.
In other words, the call letter sent by the third respondent with respect to advertisement dated 16.7.2000 has not specified the time, the date,
month and year at which the petitioner was called upon to appear before the third respondent-Board. This would mean that the petitioner had been
deprived of the valuable opportunity to appear and take part in the selection. The blanks left in the call letter is admitted in the counter affidavit as
extracted above. However, what is sought to be contended is that the petitioner was informed of the same over phone by Mr.Gopalan, Officer
employed in the office of the third respondent. The call letter has been sent by the third respondent.
The counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the supporting affidavit of Mr.Gopalan are silent as to the date and time on
which the petitioner had contacted the said Mr.Gopalan over phone. The petitioner while stating that he has contacted the office of the first
respondent, adds that the second respondent has further stated that he was informed that he will be intimated of the date and time of interview for
the selection. The said version of the petitioner appears normal as against the statement of Mr.Gopalan. Since the alleged date on which the
petitioner contacted Mr.Gopalan has not been set out, it is not possible to accept the same. At any rate, having come to know that the petitioner
who has been served with a defective call letter, the respondent had not intimated the date and time of the interview/selection, at least a telegraphic
message or a speed post could have been sent about the interview and communicating the date on which the petitioner is required to appear before
the third respondent-Board. In the absence of such a telegraph message or speed post, the attempt on the part of the second respondent as well as
Mr.Gopalan, stating that the said Mr.Gopalan has intimated about the date and time of interview cannot be accepted, nor it could be sustained, as
it is not a normal procedure.
It is fundamental that in case of grant state largesse all the persons who have applied should be afforded an opportunity and failure to afford
necessary opportunity is a clear case of violation of Art.14 and denial of right of being considered for the selection. Had the third respondent
intimated the date and time of interview the petitioner would have definitely attended the same. The petitioner has been denied of his right to take
part in the selection by not intimating the date and time of interview. It is needless to add that the entire selection deserves to be set aside. The
minimum that is required is a consideration, even that has been denied. The petitioner had been deprived of his right to take part in the interview
and this has resulted in his being denied of his valuable right.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the petitioner is not eligible and therefore it may not be necessary to
send a call letter. Such a contention cannot be sustained at all. Having issued a call letter, when it is brought to the notice of the respondents that
the call letter do not contain the time and date of interview, which is the minimum requirement, the respondents should have intimated the time and
date of interview.
When all other particulars are filled up in the call letter, it is rather strange as to how the date and time of interview had been omitted to be filled
up by the second respondent or the third respondent, as the case may be. This omission has resulted in deprivation of valuable right of the
petitioner namely disabled the petitioner from taking part in the selection and denial of his right to be considered. This is illegal and unconstitutional.
Even if the 4th respondent has been selected, the selection of the 4th respondent necessarily has to be interfered, since the petitioner had been
denied of valuable opportunity to appear before the selection board and take part in the selection and non consideration for no fault of the
petitioner, definitely vitiates the selection process.
In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The entire selection of dealers for the Retail Outlet in question is quashed and the third
respondent is directed to hold a fresh selection by issuing fresh call letters to all the applicants and consider all the applicants including the petitioner
on merits and according to law.
The Writ Petition is allowed. WMP.NO.1032 of 2001 is closed. No costs.