AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal filed by the original writ petitioner is directed against that portion of the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1116/2005 whereby he has, after setting-aside the selection of respondent No.3 herein, directed that fresh selections be made according to the new policy. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was at the behest of and on the filing of the writ petition by the present appellant that the selection of the private respondent was set-aside. He submits that therefore, after setting aside the selection, the learned single Judge should have either ordered that the next person in the panel should be granted the retail outlet or at best should have directed that fresh selection be made from amongst the persons who had originally applied for this part. His last submission is that the learned single Judge should not have directed that selection should be made in accordance with the new policy and even a fresh selection should have been made in terms of the original policy.
The un-disputed facts are that the Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement on 24.12.1997 inviting applications for allotment of retail outlet at Bangana. The present appellant and respondent No.3 amongst others filed applications and finally a Selection Committee selected respondent No.3 and the letter of intent was issued in favour of respondent No.3. This action was challenged by the present petitioner on various grounds but one of the main grounds raised was that the marking by the Selection Committee is arbitrary and ex-facie showed bias in favour of the private respondent. The learned single Judge held and in our opinion, rightly so, that present appellant who possessed a degree of graduation as well as LLB degree could not have been granted only 20 marks for educational qualifications, whereas the private respondent who was only a matriculate was awarded 38 marks. He has rightly held that either the Selection Committee was biased or there was total non-application of mind. The selection was set-aside on this ground.
We are of the view that when selection is set-aside on the ground of bias and non-application of mind, it can not be said that bias is only in favour of the respondent No.3. In such an eventuality, the only relief which should have been granted was fresh selection and we think that the learned single Judge was right in refusing the prayer of the appellant praying that a direction be issued to allot retail outlet in her favour.
The next question as to whether the learned single Judge was right in holding that since a new selection policy had been issued and the selection process had undergone change, fresh, selection should be made. In this regard, we may also add that Sh. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate has argued before us that as per the new policy, there are no minimum educational qualifications for women candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories and even illiterate women are eligible as long as they can write and count in the recognized language. He submits that the field of choice has become much wider and therefore, the petitioner would be prejudiced and put at a disadvantage. He also urges that the policy could not have been applied retrospectively. We are dealing herewith a writ petition in which selection process started in the year 1997 and the writ petition was filed in 2001 and allowed in the year 2007. The relief to be granted in a writ petition is discretionary relief. No doubt, the discretion has to be exercised in a legal manner and in accordance with law but it is well known that Writ Court which grant extraordinary relief it can mould the relief according to the circumstances of the case. Not only had the policy changed during this period but also the method of selection at the composition of the Selection Committee had changed. The earlier system had undergone a sea change and therefore, a fresh selection had to be made. The petitioner does not become ineligible because of the new Policy only the field of choice is widened.
The learned single Judge held that the selection had to be made as per the new policy. We are here dealing not with the case of employment but with a commercial transaction where a retail outlet is to be granted to run a Petrol pump on commercial basis. In such cases, it is the larger interest which has to be taken into consideration and private rights must give way to larger public interest. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal which is rejected. We further direct that the fresh selection and process for grant of the retail outlet be completed latest by 30th June, 2012. If due to any subsequent change in policy the petitioner has become ineligible, her application shall not be rejected on this ground and shall be entertained for the purpose of fresh selection as per the new policy.