Waseem Ahmad vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Sri Atul Srivastava and Sri P. Padia for the Respondents.

The Petitioner earlier also approached this Court. At that time this Court, by order dated 17.8.2010, considering that there was representation by the Petitioner, directed the Respondents to dispose of the complaint. Subsequent to that, the Petitioner was informed by communication dated 27.12.2010 that his representation was considered and that he was held ineligible for not producing certain original documents.

By this petition, it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that requirement of the brochure to produce original documents is not mandatory but directory and in these circumstances the Petitioner ought to have been given opportunity to produce said documents. Learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria and Others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and Others, On the other hand, on behalf of the Respondent-Corporation learned Counsel points out that the requirement of producing the original documents is mandatory in terms of the brochure. The Petitioner was aware of the same when he applied in terms of the brochure. It is submitted that this is a matter of contractual term. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria supra is on a different aspect and consequently that judgment would not apply to the facts of the present case.

We shall first correctly understand the ratio in the case of Charles K. Skaria supra. In that case the issue was whether a candidate who possessed the minimum qualification before the last date for admission but did not have the proof could be allowed to appear for selection and in that context the Supreme Court held that the provisions in the prospectus for enclosing certificates along with the application was directory. The basis of it was that what was relevant was obtaining the qualification before the last date and that the requirement of producing the certificate to that extent is merely directory and not mandatory for proving the possession of qualification as prescribed in the prospectus.

In the instant case, what was mandatory for a candidate eligible to be considered, was production of all the documents in original. This is one of the requirement and it cannot, therefore, be held that in this matter of contract, where parties have been informed that the original has to be produced, it will be open to the parties to contend that if the originals are not produced, then too he should be interviewed. Apart from that, though such is a reason given for not interviewing the Petitioner, the F.D. receipts which the Petitioner was seeking to rely upon were "encumberred" and in terms of Clause 12 of the application, such documents could not be relied upon. In that context also, in our opinion, the question of considering the Petitioner''s candidature would not have arisen.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.