S. Mani and P.S. Lalitha Kumari vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Oil Selection Board

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Both the writ petitions are relating to the grant of retail outlet dealership of petrol of Indian Oil Corporation at Manali, in pursuance of an advertisement dated 29.3.1990.

It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the said advertisement dated 29.3.1990, interviews were conducted on 5.3.1993 and 6.3.1993 for all the eligible candidates and the Petitioners herein were also called for the interview on 5.3.1993 and 6.3.1993 respectively. The Petitioners claim that they satisfied all the norms required in the advertisement and in fact, the Petitioner in W.P. No. 5325 of 1995 contends that her name was also included in the merit panel by the selection committee as she satisfies all the qualifications prescribed for the grant of retail outlet dealership of petrol at Manali.

The first Respondent, in their counter affidavit had fairly stated that the Petitioner in W.P. No. 5325 of 1995 had been included in the merit panel by the selection committee, namely the second Respondent. However, the Respondents could not proceed on the basis of the selection held on 5.3.1993 and 6.3.1993 as the Ministry of Petroleum, by their letter dated 16.6.1993, set aside the interviews, stating as follows:

The eight cases in which the present O.S.B. for Tamil Nadu and Punjab have conducted the interviews may be re-advertised for selection of dealers/distributors as is being done in similar other cases treating the interviews and further action having been set aside.

Admittedly, this letter of the Ministry of Petroleum dated 16.6.1993 was not communicated to the Petitioners. On the other hand, in pursuance of the said letter of the Ministry of Petroleum dated 16.6.1993, first Respondent issued another advertisement on 23.9.1993 inviting fresh applications for the grant of retail outlet dealership of petrol, by the 1st Respondent, for the very same location, namely at Manali, Chengai MGR District. Hence, the above writ petitions.

Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners contends that even though the advertisement dated 29.3.1990 enables the company to reserve the right to cancel/withdraw/postpone the interviews at its sole discretion without assigning any reason, such discretion should be exercised by the company bona fide and reasonably but not arbitrarily and mala fide and in any event, since interviews had already been conducted on 5.3.1993 calling for the eligible candidates who have applied to the said dealership, on the basis of the advertisement issued as early as on 29.3.1990 and the selection process has been set on motion, the same cannot be arbitrarily or unreasonably either cancelled or withdrawn or set aside without any good and sufficient reason.

Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel further contends that the Petitioners have already invested substantial amount to satisfy the conditions required by the Company for the grant of retail outlet dealership, particularly for locating the petrol bunk and establishing an office etc. and therefore, if the entire selection process initiated in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.3.1990 is either cancelled or withdrawn or set aside without any good and sufficient reason, the Petitioners would be put to irreparable loss and hardship and such cancellation or withdrawal would violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, placing reliance on the letter of the Ministry of Petroleum dated 16.6.1993 referred to above, contends that the Respondent Corporation has no option except to set aside the interviews conducted by the second Respondent Selection Committee on the basis of the advertisement dated 29.3.1990. He further contends that the Petitioners are not in any way prejudiced by the fresh advertisement, in view of Clause 9 of the advertisement dated 23.9.1993, referred to above, which reads as follows:

Please note that for Manali location, ( Chennai MGR District), interviews were held earlier pursuant to the advertisement issued on 29.3.1990 and the selection process could not be completed. Those candidates who were called for interview pursuant to the earlier advertisement aforesaid will be called for interview again by the OSB and they need not, therefore, submit fresh application.

According to the learned Counsel for the Respondents, since the candidates who were called for the interview, in pursuance of the earlier advertisement namely 29.3.1990 would be called for interview again by the Oil Corporation Board and they need not therefore submit fresh applications.

I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.

In my considered opinion, in the notification dated 29.3.1990, It is stated that the Respondent-company has got the power to cancel or withdraw or postpone the interviews exercising its discretion. But in the instant case, admittedly the company had not taken any decision either to cancel or withdraw or set aside the interviews conducted in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.3.1990. On the other hand, the Respondents admit that the Petitioner in W.P. No. 5325 of 1995 has been included in the merit panel and the only reason for not pursuing the said interview process, according to the Respondents is that the Ministry of Petroleum, by their letter dated 16.6.1993, set aside the interviews referred to above. Therefore, the fact remains that the company, as on date, has not cancelled or withdrawn or set aside the merit panel on the basis of the interviews conducted on 5.3.1993 and 6.3.1993 relating to the impugned grant of retail outlet dealership of petrol, at Manali.

That apart, there is nothing on record to show that the letter of Ministry of Petroleum dated 16.6.1993, relied upon by the Respondents, is related to the impugned grant of retail outlet dealership of petrol by the first Respondent-corporation as the said letter dated 16.6.1993 is very vague. Assuming the said letter also deals with the impugned dealership, I still fail to see any reason for setting aside the merit panel prepared for the selection of the distributors of petrol and therefore, the said letter dated 16.6.1993 is held to be unreasonable and arbitrary attracting Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the very fact that the Petitioner in W.P. No. 5325 of 1995 is included in the merit panel of the second Respondent, with regard to the impugned grant of retail outlet dealership, creates a vested right in her to pursue the selection process unless and until the merit panel prepared by the second Respondent Selection Board is cancelled, withdrawn or set aside for just and valid reason and in the manner known to law as any action initiated and decision taken by the second Respondent by exercising their powers conferred on them deems to be valid in law for all purposes or otherwise, it will attract Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the Petitioners are entitled to pursue the selection process and consequently, the Respondents are directed to complete the selection process and pass appropriate final orders on merits, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.3.1990 and the Respondents are forbidden to proceed with the advertisement dated 23.9.1993. The appropriate final orders shall be passed within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs.