AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Agnihotri, J.
Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.5.2005 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner made an application for allotment of Kisan Seva Kendra (for short "KSK"). After having considered the application of the petitioner at length the petitioner was found successful. Accordingly, in the list of short listed candidates for allotment of KSK at Kota, Block Mal Kharod, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, the petitioner was placed serial No. 1 vide selection list dated 22.8.2005 (Annexure-P/8). Thereafter, without affording an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order dated 19.12.2005 was passed canceling the allotment of KSK at Kota on the ground that there are certain complaints against the merit panel of candidates. It further states that during the course of investigation it was found that the petitioner was not fulfilling the conditions/suppressed the facts about his residence certificate, therefore, re-interview for all eligible candidates for the subject location as per the policy guideline was ordered.
The petitioner, after having been found selected as No. 1, was not given the allotment letter, thus, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court being W.P. No. 4501/2005. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 19.9.2005 (Annexure P/10) with an observation that the petitioner may send a notice for demand of justice to the respondents and in turn, the respondents to take decision on the same within a reasonable time. It was further observed that if the petitioner feels dissatisfied, a liberty was reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court.
In meantime, after issuance of legal notice, the impugned order dated 19.12.2005 (Annexure P/1) was passed. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred the instant petition seeking a direction that the impugned letter dated 19.12.2005 may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to allot KSK of Indian Oil Corporation for location of Kota, Block-Mai Kharod, District-Janjgir-Champa, to the petitioner.
This Court by order dated 27.4.2007 granted interim relief to the extent that if the disputed petrol pump is granted to some other person, that would be subject to final decision of the case.
Shi Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions and he has not suppressed the material facts with regard to his residential certificate. All the allegations have been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
According to Shri Kinger, learned counsel for the respondent, the respondent corporation did not proceed with the interview in view of the above stated order passed by this Court. Thus, the KSK in dispute was not allotted to any person and the same remains available even today. Shri Kinger further submits that the petitioner was short listed and was placed at serial No. 1, but the petitioner has not acquired any right for allotment. Even otherwise, by impugned letter it was found that re-interview of all eligible candidates for the subject location would be done. Thus, there is no prejudice to the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.
From the impugned letter, it appears that once the petitioner has been found to have not fulfilled all the conditions/suppressed the fact about the residence certificate, the petitioner became disentitled for the subsequent interview, which was under contemplation under the impugned letter dated 19.12.2005. Thus, declaring the petitioner that he has not fulfilled all the conditions or suppressed the facts with regard to residence certificate caused prejudice to the petitioner as it appears that all the papers were examined before the interview and before short listing the candidates. Thereafter, there was no occasion to investigate on the basis of some complaint without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Having regard to the fact situation of the case and for the reasons mention hereinabove, the impugned letter dated 19.12.2005 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be quashed. If after selection of the petitioner, his candidature has been quashed on account of certain allegation, the petitioner is entitled to be afforded an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, if the respondent corporation decides not to allot the KSK as per the list of selected candidates, the petitioner is entitled opportunity of hearing before a prejudicial order condemning the conduct of the petitioner is passed.
In normal course a person is not entitled to the allotment order on the basis that his name found place in the select list when allotment was not made to any other person. However, in the facts of the case wherein the allotment could not be made on the ground of certain allegations, according to the petitioner, unfounded allegations. Fundamental principle of the maxim audi alteram partem is that ''no man shall be condemned unheard''. The said maxim is squarely applicable to the facts of the case, as the impugned letter dated 19.12.2005 canceling the candidature of the petitioner was on the basis of certain allegations.
In the result, the impugned letter dated 19.12.2005 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.