The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief:- “10(a) quash and set aside the communication dated 14/11/2011 issued by the Respondent No.1 herein stating that the petitioner had not supplied residence proof issued by the competent authority;
(b) pending admission direct the Respondent to take a fresh decision on merits of the representation dated 28/11/2011 and call the petitioner to attend for an interview.
(c) pending admission direct the Respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to sit in the interview and the result may be kept in sealed covert till the final outcome of the application;
(d) pending the admission stay the interview scheduled on 08/12/2011 till the hearing of this application;”
2. The controversy in present petition lies in narrow compass, particularly after the reply affidavit and rejoinder affidavit by the parties, it is not necessary to narrate or discuss the other factual aspects and the contentions stated by the petitioner.
3. In response to an advertisement issued by the respondent corporation whereby applications for allotment of retail outlet were invited, present petitioner submitted his application. It appears that after scrutiny of the application, the petitioner was informed vide communication dated 14.11.2011 that the petitioner was considered ineligible since alongwith his application, he had not submitted “residence proof from the competent authority”.
It also appears that after receiving the said communication, the petitioner represented before the competent authority and demonstrated that the proof of residence was submitted, however, the respondent authority continued with its decision of treating the petitioner as ineligible. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, has preferred present petition.
4. In reply affidavit, the respondent corporation has clarified that the petitioner had, actually, not submitted relevant documents in accordance with the terms of the advertisement inasmuch as proof of residence submitted by the petitioner was not in accordance with one of the relevant conditions under which the document had to be “self-attested”. It is asserted by the respondent that the petitioner had not submitted self-attested document about proof of residence.
5. So far as the said defect is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not submit self-attested document related to proof of residence.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has admitted that the document was not self-attested.
The respondent would therefore contend that the corporation cannot subsequently accept any document which may fulfill the requirement and rectify or remove the original defect and that therefore, the application of the petitioner has to be treated as ineligible.
The respondent corporation has, on this count, heavily relied on the decision of the Division Bench rendered in CAV Judgment dated 10.5.2011 in LPA No.1099 of 2010 and submitted that the respondent corporation cannot subsequently accept the documents which would cure the initial defect. Therefore, the application of the petitioner has to be treated as defective.
In support of the said submission, the respondent corporation has relied on para-5 to 8 of the judgment dated 10.5.2011 in LPA 1099 of 2010, which read thus:-
“5. Learned counsel for the appellant re-agitated grounds of challenge to the decision of IOC raised before the learned Single Judge and further vehemently submitted that the learned Judge erred in interpreting clause 10(e) of the selection Policy as mentioned in the brochure, which mandated about attestation of the documents and the policy circular No.90-10/2005 dated 10.10.2005 with regard to selection of petrol / diesel retail outlets, which was applied uniformly not only in the State of Gujarat but all over the country. It is further submitted that since one of the candidates, who was assigned zero marks, has not submitted attested project report, interpretation of policy to favour such candidate is contrary to the law. Besides, the report was not sent to the Head Office and if such an interpretation is to be advanced and to be believed for one outlet, it was incumbent upon the respondent to cancel the interview of all 15 locations / outlets and to re-interview all the candidates after assigning marks on the basis of the document though not attested by the candidates. Therefore, it is submitted that the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and consequential order of the learned Single Judge also deserves to be dismissed.
6. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent – Corporation, reiterated submissions made before the learned Single Judge and also drawn attention of this Court to the public advertisement issued in newspapers, detailed procedure followed by the Corporation, role of the Selection Committee at Levels I & II and further affidavits filed in this appeal and submitted that no error much less error of law appears in the oral judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge, which calls for any interference by Appellate Bench and accordingly the appeal deserves to be rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent extensively referred to the findings of learned Single Judge from para 21 onwards of the impugned judgment and submitted that rejection of the writ petition is based on correct interpretation of clauses of circular and policies of the respondent – Corporation and by applying the law declared by the Apex Court in various decisions referred to in the impugned judgment, appeal be rejected. Learned advocate for the respondent No.3 accepted and adopted the submissions made by Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent No.2 - Corporation.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has committed an error while interpreting clause 5 of the Circular No.90-10/2005 and clause 10(e) of brochure / guidelines for selection of petrol / diesel outlets, which mandated that self-attested copies of all other supporting documents should be submitted along with completed application form duly signed and also originals of the affidavits. For necessary reference, clause 5 of Circular dated 10.10.2005 and clause 10(e) of brochure / guidelines for selection of petrol/diesel outlets, are reproduced herein below:
“5. The above marks will have to be awarded on the basis of attested copies of the documents submitted along with the application as original documents are to be brought by the candidates at the time of interview. All the documents enclosed with the application will be serially numbered and signed by each Level-I committee member”
“10(e) Originals of the Affidavits and self attested copies of the other supporting documents should be submitted along with the completed application form duly signed”
8. Thus, the application to be submitted by the candidate is not only to be signed but copies of the documents submitted along with application are required to be attested. The word document is not to be interpreted in a narrow sense as it is understood ordinarily but it has wider connotation and any supporting material in the form of document along with originals of the affidavits were to be attested by a candidate. In the facts of this case, admittedly, private respondent No.3 has not attested its project report and awarding zero marks by the Selection Committee at Level-I could not have been interpreted as incorrect procedure adopted by the Committee inasmuch as the Committee had strictly adhered to plain, simple and natural interpretation of clause 5 of circular dated 10.10.2005 and clause 10(e) of the brochure / guidelines of the selection of petrol / diesel outlet. It is further evident that cancellation of selection is qua only Palanpur outlet, though similar procedure was followed by the IOC for other all 15 outlets, where zero marks was awarded in absence of attestation of documents, including project report, such a treatment of IOC in case of Palanpur outlet only would amount to clear cut discrimination with regard to application of the policy uniformly and will be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and being discriminatory deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
6. Having regard to the aforesaid decision by the Division Bench, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that even according to the said decision, the application of the petitioner is not required to be rejected without any consideration. The only consequences would be that on the said count, the petitioner would be assigned zero mark, however, if the petitioner scores sufficient marks as regards other requirements/components, then, the petitioner’s application should accordingly be considered. In view of the order which is proposed to be made in light of the submission by Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel for respondent, this Court would not make any observation as to the petitioner's or respondent's understanding about the said order, lest it may influence the decision of the authority.
Learned advocate for the petitioner would also submit that in present case, there are only two applicants and if present applicant's application is treated ineligible only on this count, the second applicant would be the only person whose application would remain for consideration and automatically or by default the allotment of outlet would go to the said applicant without any competition or further assessment.
7. In response to the said submission, learned advocate for the respondent corporation submitted that the respondent is not going to consider the application of second applicant without proper verification and/or by disregarding any defects in the application of the said applicant. He also clarified that if the said application is found to be ineligible or disqualified for any reason, then the said application also shall not be taken into consideration.
Learned advocate for the respondent corporation also clarified that the respondent corporation has no objection in considering the application of present petitioner in light of the decision of the Division Bench, referred to above.
Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel, for the respondent has submitted that because of present petitioner's objection, entire selection process is on hold, since December-2011.
8. In view of the said submission by Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent corporation, present petition is disposed of with below mentioned observations and clarification:-
8.1 The respondent corporation shall take into consideration the application of present petitioner in light of the decision of Division Bench in LPA No.1099 of 2010 dated 10.5.2011 and evaluate the said application accordingly.
8.2 Likewise, the application made by other applicant shall also be considered strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and as per the decision of the Division Bench, as aforesaid.
8.3 The respondent authority shall take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner herein.
With the aforesaid observations, clarification and direction, present petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. Interim arrangement stands vacated forthwith.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc