Pradeep Kumar Trishul vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

As common questions of law and fact are involved in all

these three cases and challenge in these cases are made to a common

order dated 06.07.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5418 of 2014 and

C.W.J.C. No. 16973 of 2014, all the three appeals are being heard and

decided by this common order.

An advertisement was issued by M/s Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited on 22.09.2011 for grant of a

petroleum outlet in National Highway No. 98, District- Arwal, Bihar

between Paharpur More to Thakur Bigha. Various applicants

including the appellants herein, namely, Sri Pradeep Kumar Trishul

and Madhuri Devi applied. After scrutiny of the applications not only

of the appellants herein but also other eligible candidates and after

conducting inquiry, a merit-list was prepared by the Interview Board

on 07.11.2012 wherein Pradeep Kumar Trishul, one of the petitioners

was declared to have received 84.61 marks and kept at Serial No. 1 of

the panel. The other petitioner Madhuri Devi was placed at Serial No.

Madhuri Devi made a complaint questioning the legality of the

lease-deed executed in favour of the petitioner Pradeep Kumar Trishul

and, therefore, an inquiry was ordered into the entire matter by the

Petroleum Company and the compliant made was found to be partly

established. The Technical Evaluation Committee found that with

regard to Right of Way (ROW) on the location which was taken by

the Internal Technical Assessment Committee to be 30 metres from

the centre was actually less than that i.e. 22.5 metres only, as was

confirmed by the Executive Engineer, National Highway and taking

note of all these factors, the entire panel was cancelled and an order

was passed for readvertisement. That is how, the matter came to this

Court and the two writ petitions were filed challenging the act of the

department. Pradeep Kumar Trishul challenged the act of cancellation

of the panel and the Inquiry Report and Madhuri Devi challenged the

action of the respondent Petroleum Company in issuing fresh

advertisement. It was her case that once Pradeep Kumar Trishul is

found to be ineligible, she being the second in the panel, should be

granted the petroleum outlet.

The learned Writ Court evaluated the issues in question

and formulated three questions to be answered. Question No. 1 was as

to whether the selection of Pradeep Kumar Trishul was bad and

warranted cancellation and the 2nd question was that even if the

selection of Pradeep Kumar Trishul was bad, whether on cancellation

of his selection the dealership should have been given to the petitioner

Madhuri Devi or the entire panel liable to be cancelled. These two

questions have been answered by the learned Writ Court by holding

that once the Right of Way was found to have been improperly

considered and when there were materials before the petroleum

company to show that the selection process was not properly

conducted, the decision taken by the competent authority at the

highest level to cancel the entire list and readvertise the outlet cannot

be interfered with. As far as the contention of Madhuri Devi based on

guidelines 19(b)ii(a) to say that once the panel is cancelled, the second

in the panel has to be granted the dealership is concerned, the learned

Writ Court found that once it was found that the established norms

were not fulfilled and the Technical Evaluation Committee found

primary error in the entire selection process, it was the finding of the

learned Writ Court that the clause and the guidelines do permit

readvertisement and the readvertisement has been upheld.

Finally the third question was as to whether the policy

of reservation could be followed based on a circular issued on 23rd of

June, 2014 when the original advertisement in this case was issued

much prior to that in the year 2011.

The learned Writ Court considered the implication of

the circular, reproduced it and found, based on the wordings of the

circular, that the circular would applied to all such selection which

have held even on the basis of selections cancelled and redone on

established complaints.

The learned Writ Court, in our considered view, has

gone into all these aspects of the matter and has rejected the writ

petitions by a detailed order and has upheld the act of the Corporation

in directing for reselection into the matter and we see no reason to

make any indulgence into the matter.

The Letters Patent Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.