Prityush Kumar vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others

Heard Sri V.K. Singh learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S. Shekhar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Verma learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation and Sri Salil Kumar Rai for the respondent No. 4. Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order dated 7.5.2012 Annexure 12 to the writ petition where under the representation of the petitioner in response to the order of the High Court dated 19.1.2012 passed in earlier Writ Petition No. 3105 of 2012 has been rejected by means of a reasoned order. It has further prayed that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 may be restrained from issuing any letter of intent in favour of the respondent No. 4 for the location Akaripur, Kisan Seva Kendra, district Allahabad.

The facts of the case, in short, are that in response to the advertisement published by the Indian Oil Corporation for awarding dealership for the location Akaripur, Kisan Seva Kendra district Allahabad the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 had submitted their applications. After the interview held on 17.6.2010, the result was declared on the same date. The petitioner was empanelled at serial No. 3 while the respondent No. 4 was empanelled at serial No. 1.

The petitioner was not satisfied with the result and certain objections were raised in respect of selection and after consideration of the objections, a revised panel was notified on 26.7.2011 wherein the respondent No. 4 was placed at serial No. 1 while the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2. The petitioner has been awarded only 16.85 marks out of 20 marks under the heading of Ready Availability of Finance. This according to the petitioner was incorrect. He therefore furnished his objection. Since the objection had not been considered the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3105 of 2012. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed on 19.1.2012 which is reproduced below:

Sri Tarun Verma appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submits that on complaint dated 15.9.2011 submitted by the petitioner the respondents are taking steps to process the complaint and further, action in pursuance of the letter of intent has been put on hold. He submits that about six weeks time shall be taken in processing the complaint.

In view of above statement let this petition be listed after six weeks. Sri Naveen Sinha assisted by Sri Sahil Kumar has appeared for respondent No. 4.

In view of the aforesaid no letter of intent had been issued. The complaint of the petitioner has been processed and under order 7.5.2012 it has been rejected. Hence this writ petition.

The Court has been informed that the writ petition No. 3105 of 2012 has been dismissed as infructuous in view of the order dated 7.5.2012 which has been challenged by means of the present writ petition.

On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that under the guide-lines prescribed the marks in respect of the various para-meter in the matter of selection for awarding the dealership so far as availability of finance is concerned, the maximum marks provided are 25 and the prescribed marks to be awarded to each candidate under the various heads, has also been prescribed under the Brochure.

There is no dispute in respect of the marks to be awarded under Liquid cash and fixed moveable assets. The dispute in the present case is with regard to marks awarded under the head "Income" includes agricultural income, business income, interest, rent, royalty, etc duly supported by documentary evidence. The maximum marks are four. According to the petitioner the respondents have committed an error in not awarding full marks under the said criteria to the petitioner and had awarded only 0.85 marks. The respondents have not taken into consideration the pension of father of the petitioner for the purposes of determination of total income of the petitioner and therefore if the monthly pension of the father of the petitioner is included alongwith other income of the petitioner, he would be entitled to full marks and that would alter the result of the selection.

In support of the contention, Sri V.K. Singh learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to us the guide-lines in the matter of consideration of financial capabilities. Clause 13 whereof has been placed before us which is reproduced below:

It is also stated that the father of the petitioner had filed an affidavit which was part of the application categorically stating in para 1 of the affidavit which is reproduced below:

The said affidavit further discloses the details of the accounts maintained by the petitioner and the property possessed by him and his wife but the respondents have not taken the same into consideration for the purposes of awarding marks under the sub-heading Liquid cash.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred clause 6 for the purpose of family unit consisting of a father, mother and unmarried brother(s)/unmarried sisters(s), if the applicant is unmarried.

From the order impugned we find that income certificate of the petitioner dated 23.4.2008 has been discarded on the ground that if certifies income of the father of the petitioner for the financial year 2007-2008 while as per the advertisement, the income certificate was required to be furnished for the previous year namely 2008-09. The other incomes of the petitioner have also been considered and marks have been awarded for which there is no dispute.

Sri V.K. Singh learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is not challenging the findings recorded under the order impugned for the certificate appended alongwith application dated 23.4.2008 being irrelevant in terms of the conditions of the Advertisement and the Brochure. It is his case that the income of the father of the petitioner for the financial years 2008-2009 from the pension should have been included for the purpose of awarding marks.

Sri Tarun Verma learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation points out that total money available in the pension account of the father of the petitioner has been taken into consideration for awarding marks under the heading Liquid Cash. The petitioner wants the same income to be included again under the heading of Income.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 points out that any income to be taken into consideration must have been verified by the documents and since in fact the document submitted by the petitioner namely the certificate of Tahsildar has been admitted by the petitioner to be irrelevant, non-inclusion of the same, cannot be faulted with.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we have gone through the records of the case.

In our considered opinion clause 13 of the guide-lines deals specifically with the money available in saving account, current account, F.D.R., N.S.C. Etc. If Income and other properties are recorded in the name of members of the family jointly then such properties are to be considered provided all the co-sharers and joint account holders give an undertaking on requisite stamps paper/affidavit.

We may record that for the purpose of getting the benefit of pension income of father, the petitioner had filed certificate of Tahsildar. He has now turned around and has relied upon the Pass Book which has already been taken into consideration under the heading of Liquid cash and marks have been awarded.

In our opinion the Indian Oil Corporation was justified in refusing to award mark to the petitioner in respect of the pension income of the father. Further we see no illegality under the impugned order which has been passed by the Indian Oil Corporation. No case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.