IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.8798 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI RAKESH S R AGED 30 YEARS, S/O SOMASHEKHAR KODIPALYA RAMOHALLY VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560074 (By MR.B PRABHUDEVA, ADV.) AND:
1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED MARKETING DIVISION BANGALORE DIVISIONAL OFFICE … PETITIONER NO.28 1ST FLOOR ANJUMAN KAY ARR TOWER P KALINGA RAO ROAD, (MISSION ROAD) BANGALORE-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF DIVISIONAL SALES MANAGER 2. SMT PAVITHRA L C/O INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED MARKETING DIVISION BANGALORE DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.28 1ST FLOOR ANJUMAN KAY ARR TOWER P KALINGA RAO ROAD, (MISSION ROAD) BANGALORE-560027 … RESPONDENTS (By MR.DHANANJAYA JOSHI, ADV. FOR R1 & 2) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21.01.2019 OF THE R-1 IN ANNEXURE-H AND DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER AS APPLICANT IN GROUP-1 AND TO TAKE FURTHER SELECTION AS PER GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION ISSUED AS PER ANNEXURE-C DATED 24.11.2018; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.B.Prabhudeva, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Dhananjaya Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of the communication dated 21.01.2019 and direct the respondents to consider the petitioner as an applicant in Group-1 and to take further selection process as per guideline for selection dated 24.11.2018.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that on 25.11.2018, an advertisement was issued for which applications were invited for appointment of regular / rural retail outlet (petrol bunk) dealership for various locations in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner submitted an application on 21.12.2018 at Ramohalli location. The petitioner applied for the said location classified himself in Group-2 which is evident in Column 9 of page 111 of the paper book. The petitioner was entitled to review his application up to 25.12.2018 and to withdraw it in case of any errors and re-submit the same before the deadline. However, the petitioner, after the deadline, submitted an application to consider his case under Group-1. The aforesaid prayer has not been acceded to by the respondent No.1. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inadvertently the petitioner himself described in Column 9 that the case of the petitioner shall be considered under category 2 instead of category 1. It is further submitted that the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioners under Group-1.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has supported its action as well as the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioner in Column 9 of the application, has submitted that his case be considered in Group-2. The petitioner was entitled to review his application up to 25.12.2018 and to withdraw it in case of any errors and re-submit the same before the deadline. However, the petitioner failed to do so. The petitioner’s application was considered as per his application for Group-2 and another applicant was found to be more suitable. The respondent No.1 – Corporation, therefore, by a communication dated 21.01.2019, declined to entertain the request of the petitioner to consider him in Group-1 instead of Group-
2. No fault could be found with the action of the respondent No.1. Infact, the petitioner besides having ample opportunity to correct the error, did not avail of the opportunity. Therefore, the impugned action cannot be said to be either arbitrary or irrational. Therefore, no case for interference is made out in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same fails and is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RV