AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon. Shri Justice Sujoy Paul
These petitions were analogously heard on 07.08.2012. In W.P. No. 1077/2009, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
Reliefs:-
(i) That, the selection conducted by the respondent company may kindly be quashed and the respondents No. 4 and 5 be held disqualified from selection.
(ii) the respondent company be directed to make proper reservation of the vacancies and to reserve appropriate number of vacancies under open-women category.
(iii) any other relief which this Hon''ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted, and
(iv) the costs may kindly be awarded.
During the pendency of this petition, the selection which had taken place pursuant to advertisement, Annexure P-3, was cancelled. Certain persons, who were beneficiaries in the said selection, challenged the same before this Court in W.P. No. 5324/2009. This Court found no merit in the petition, however, it was clarified that the committee may conduct fresh interview and may award marks in accordance with criteria fixed by the corporation. This order was challenged by filing writ appeal No. 638/2010, which was also dismissed. A review petition No. 304/2011 was also not entertained. Consequently, the respondents conducted fresh interview on the basis of same advertisement.
Writ Petition No. 3722/2012 is filed to challenge the interview process with following reliefs:-
Reliefs:-
(1) That, the interview process in the current form may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to conduct the interviews after considering the present parameters of the applicants by calling current documents,
(2) Costs and any other relief which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit kindly be awarded.
The contention of the petitioner is that so far W.P. No. 1077/2009 is concerned, relief 7(ii) still subsists. To elaborate, Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner had challenged the action of respondents, whereby adequate reservation was not provided. He submits that the second selection, which is subject matter of W.P. No. 3722/2012, is based on the first advertisement, and therefore, aforesaid relief 7(ii) still survives because it deals with the demand of adequate reservation of vacancies.
Shri Vivek Jain, Advocate by placing reliance on Annexure P-2 (Selection of Indane Distributors), submits that a percentage of reservation is prescribed by the respondents. The relevant portion of which reads as under:
In the above, 33% in each category stated above will be reserved for women in the respective category. Other things being equal, unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents and widows will be given preference over others in all women categories. In case of widows a death certificate in respect of husband and an affidavit that she has not remarried will have to be submitted.
On the basis of aforesaid, Shri Jain Submits that if 33% reservation is made applicable, the respondents were required to provide reservation for women which is quantified as 6 in number by the petitioner. The petitioner has worked out the percentage in Para 1, 5.5 and 5.6 of the writ petition No. 1077/2009. On the basis of aforesaid, it is the case of the petitioner that respondents have not provided adequate reservation for women, and therefore, petitioner being a woman will be deprived from her right of consideration against a woman reserve category.
Shri N.K. Jain, learned senior counsel submits that the respondents have prepared a 100 Points Roster and the selection and percentage of reservation given in the advertisement is in accordance with the said roster. The roster is also filed along with return as Annexure R-1. The respondents have pleaded in their return in para 5.6, which reads as under:
5.6 That, the contents of para 5.6 of the petition are not correct, the L.P.G. Distributorships locations are placed under different categories of reservations as per 100 points roster for the state on industry basis (IOCL, BPCL and HPCL together)
100 point roster is an allocation of a reservation category against a serial number such that when 100 numbers of dealers distributors are planned the percentage of each category is achieved as per the government guideline. Continuity is maintained in 100 point roster if in previous marketing plan, the last roster number allocated is say 51 then the rostering will start from roster serial No. 52. Once 100 roster serial numbers are completed, it is started from roster serial No. 1 again. 100 point roster is attached as Annexure R-1. The policies on which the roster is framed are filed as Annexure R-2.
As per aforesaid stand, the respondents submits that roster is a running account. In a particular selection, the roster will begin from a point before which other points are already filled up in earlier selection. Shri Vivek Jain submits that respondents have not made it clear as to from which point roster has been operated for the purpose of determining women reservation in the advertisement in question. He further submits that the respondents are the custodian of the records and this truth has to be unveiled by the respondents. Shri Jain submits that as per his understanding, if percentage of reservation aforesaid is applied to the roster (Annexure R-1) from any point, the number of women vacancies would be much more than what has been prescribed by the respondents.
Although, learned senior counsel has emphasized that as per the orders of this Court whereby second selection was permitted, no fault can be found in the second selection, in my considered opinion, the challenge made by certain candidates was on different ground. It was not on the question of number of vacancies/reservation. Respondents are admittedly, proceeding on the basis of earlier advertisement. Thus, it cannot be said that the first petition has rendered infructuous.
To determine the real questions and answer them properly, it is necessary to direct the respondents to make it clear as to from which point, they operated the roster while preparing the advertisement which is subject matter of challenge in W.P. No. 1077/2009. On such disclosure only proper adjudication can be made.
Consequently, I deem it proper to release these matters with the directions to the respondents to file an affidavit and documents (if any) to demonstrate as to from which point, the roster was operated. Respondents shall, accordingly, file an affidavit within 15 days as under:
(i) The affidavit shall be filed by a competent officer.
(ii) In the affidavit, respondents shall disclose about the roster point from where they have counted the vacancies to show that as per Annexure R-1, the vacancies are properly calculated in the advertisement.
(iii) In other words, the respondents shall provide the adequate actual data about the roster point from where they proceeded and counted the vacancies for the purpose of advertisement. If necessary, the relevant documents may also be filed along with affidavit.
(iv) The respondents shall further specifically and clearly indicate in the affidavit as to how they worked out the number, on which reservation was applied. In other words, the break up for the aforesaid number be clearly indicated by producing necessary data/material.
Consequently, these matters are released for complying with the aforesaid directions.
A typed copy of this order be given to the parties of these matters.