1. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief/s:-
"8.(A).....
(B) Allow this petition by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the selection list dated 7.12.2010 issued by the respondent No.1 and thereby, be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to grant the retail outlet dealership within 2 kms. from Sika Chowkdi on SH 59 to the present petitioner.
(C) .......
(D)....."
2. The respondent has filed affidavit contesting the petition wherein it is stated that:-
"9.. With reference to para. 3.6. of the petition HPCL denies that the candidates at Sr.No.1 & Sr.No.2 on the provisional merit list were ineligible or that the Petitioner was more eligible as contended. HPCL states that in order to maintain complete transparency in the selection procedure it has acted strictly in consonance with the terms and conditions of the Advertisement. Further as per clause 13 (q) of the general terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 30/06/2010 it has been declared by HPCL that the same was only an application and not an offer a dealership.
10.. With respect to para. 3.7 of the petition it is denied that HPCL had with a malafide intention to favour the candidate at Sr.No.1 and Sr.No. 2 on the merit list chosen not to give marks to the Petitioner for capability to provide finance inspite of the Petitioner producing the document showing fixed deposits of Rs.37,64,565/0. It is submitted that the Petitioner was rightly allotted 4 marks.
11.. HPCL states that after the merit panel was displayed HPCL received two complaints of which one was made by Mr.Patel Ajit Kumar Amrutlal (Second empanelled candidate) on 22/12/2010 and the second complaint was received from the Petitioner on 29/12/2010 and the same is annexed by the Petitioner as Annexure _______ to this petition.
12.. HPCL states that since both the complaints were received by HPCL within the period of 30 days from the publication of the merit panel it had proceeded to investigate the same as per the guidelines.
13.. HPCL states that the 2nd empanelled candidate Patel Ajitkumar Amrutlal had alleged that first empanelled candidate, Shri Prajapati Virendrakumar Muljibhai was wrongly awarded 35 marks under the parameter land and infrastructure because he was not owing any land or if he had submitted registered documents of land then he has not given his consent and willingness to sub-lease the land to HPCL.
14.. HPCL further states that the Petitioner Mr. Patel Hareshbhai Nathabhai had alleged in his complaint and had expressed the displeasure for award of marks to him under the parameter of capability to provide finance, educational qualification, and project report.
15.. HPCL states that for the purpose of investigating the complaints. The Chief Regional Manager-Jodhpur, was appointed to carryout the investigation.
16.. HPCL states that on investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer in respect of the complaint of the 2nd empanelled candidate Mr. Patel Ajitkumar Amrutlal and on perusal of the complaint along with the application of the first empanelled candidate it was observed that there was no document available with the application of Shri Prajapati Virendrakumar Muljibhai (1st empanelled candidate) for offered of land under S.No.85/1, Hissa No.45. The candidate had taken the land on lease vide registered lease deed dated 15/7/2010 from Patel Vitthal Revabhai. However, the land documents showing ownership of land by lessor were not available. Hence, the 1st empanelled candidate was entitled to zero marks and not 35 marks. Accordingly the marks granted to the 1st empanelled candidate stood reduced from 81.30 to 54.
17.. HPCL states that similarly the complaint filed by the Petitioner Shri Patel Hareshbhai Nathbhai., was also investigated and on the question of award of 4 marks out of 25 marks under the category capability to provide Finance it was observed on the perusal of the complaint along with the application of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had not submitted any documents with the application. The Petitioner enclosed had Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 37.64 Lacs of Dena Bank jointly owned with wife and his son, and therefore safely assuming that 1/3rd of the amount belongs to the Petitioner i.e. Rs. 12.55 lacs he would be entitled for 12 marks under the category of liquid cash as no other papers for fixed assets and credit worthiness were submitted no marks were required to be awarded under these heads.
18.. HPCL further submits that in respect of the grievance of awarding of 10 marks under education qualification, where he had submitted the certificate of Diploma in Pharmacy and therefore he ought to have been awarded 12 marks, the Investigating Officer on perusal of the complaint along with the Petitioner's application observed that the enclosed certificate for Diploma in Pharmacy would entitle him for 10 marks only as per the guidelines and no additional mark could have been given."
3. From the record of the petition and from the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner and respondent company it has emerged that the respondent company has treated the merit list as "cancelled".
Therefore, the relief prayed for by the petitioner in paragraph No.8(B) to the effect that the selection list dated 7.12.2010 issued by the respondent No.1 be set aside, would not survive / stands satisfied in view of the decision taken by the respondent company.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's name was in the list prepared by the respondent. The said list i.e. the list containing petitioner's name is treated as cancelled. Actually in the petition the petitioner himself claimed that the list may be cancelled. Thus, when the list is treated as "cancelled" by the respondent company, the petitioner cannot claim that dealership of retail outlet may be granted to him. When the list is cancelled then the names of all persons / candidates who were in the list would stand cancelled and that therefore in view of the first part of relief prayed for by the petitioner himself, the second part of the relief would not survive. In view of the fact that the respondent company has treated the list as "cancelled", the relief prayed for in petition would not survive. The petition, therefore, is disposed of accordingly.
5. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that in view of the aforesaid decision of the respondent company, one the candidates whose names was included in the merit list has preferred petition being Special Civil Application No.793 of 2012 and challenged the decision / action of the respondent company. The said petition is pending. It is also necessary to mention that present petitioner is one of the respondents in the said petition therefore so far as present petitioner's grievance with regard to other candidates would be considered in the said petition and therefore also present petition does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh* Top