Heard Mr. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned reliefs:-
"21(A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned letter dated 13.05.2011 (Annexure-"K).
(B) A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing Respondents to declare the petitioner as the highest scorer as the candidates of 1st three highest scorers were cancelled by the Respondents on account of suppression of information or submission of false information."
2.1 Subsequently, the petitioner, by way of amendment, amended the prayer clause. The amended prayer reads thus:-
"21(A) The Honourable Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B) The Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the respondents to act in accordance with Para - 18(B)(ii)(b) and (c) of the Brochure/guidelines of Indian Oil Corporation dated 1st of July, 2010 and thereby consider the candidature of the petitioner as per the existing merit panel dated 15th December, 2010 for allotting dealership of retail outlet under SC category at CHUDA location, District Surendranagar."
2.2 The petitioner has approached this Court on the premise that the decision dated 13.5.2011 taken by the respondent corporation is unjustified, unsustainable and contrary to their policy.
3. By the decision contained in communication dated 13.5.2011, the respondent corporation has decided to cancel the merit list for retail outlet at Chuda, District : Surendranagar, and to re-advertise for preparing fresh merit list for the retail outlet for the said location. The petitioner claims that according to Clause 18(B)(ii)(b) and (c), if any complaints against any of the finalists are found to be correct, then, their names would be cancelled and the subsequent candidate would be considered eligible for the dealership of retail outlet.
4. The petitioner has alleged that in present case, complaints against the first three candidates were made to the respondent corporation and upon inquiry, the respondent corporation found substance in the said complaints. Consequently, the names of the said three candidates were, one after other, cancelled from the panel. In this background, the petitioner has claimed that according to the marks awarded by the respondent corporation, name of the petitioner would be as the fourth highest scorer in the list prepared by the corporation which is placed at Annexure - E page 49 and 50. Therefore, he should be awarded the dealership of retail outlet, in view of the provisions contained under above referred clauses, and action of the respondent corporation of cancelling the entire merit panel is unjustified. The petitioner has thus relied on the list at Annexure - E page 49 and 50 to support his claim that his name is included in merit panel.
5. In its reply affidavit, the respondent corporation has stated, inter alia, that :-
"9. I Respectfully submit that the Respondents have followed the policy and procedure of Selection and the same has been made available to the public at large well in advance by way of brochure dated 1st July 2010. I crave the leave to rely upon the same annexed by the Petitioner at the page 24 to 46.
10. I Respectfully submit that the said brochure clearly lays down the entire policy of selection as well as procedure that would be followed by the Respondents in the entire selection process. I further submit that in fact the said brochure clearly lays down the criteria for Eligibility to apply, Interview, Norms for Evaluating the Candidates, Result of the Interview, Filed Verification, Validity of Merit Panel, Grievance/complaint Redressal system, etc.
20. Para 8, the contents are partly undisputed, however, it is denied that the Petitioner was included in the Merit Panel dated 15.12.2010.
21. Para 9, the contents are partly based on personal perception for which I am unable to offer any comments, however, it is true that the Respondents received different complaints in the name of the Petitioner. The complaints dated 05-01-2011 and 30.01.2011, as well as 06.01.2011 and 07.01.2011 are admitted to be received by the Respondents."
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and also perused the record including the documents of policy, merit panel prepared by the respondent corporation, which appears to have been finalized on 15.12.2012, and the impugned decision dated 13.5.2011.
7. The respondent corporation has relied on clause 17 and 17.2 of its policy. The said provisions are relevant for considering petitioner's grievance. Therefore, the said provisions are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"17. "RESULT OF THE INTERVIEW"
a) After completion of the interview for a location, result along with the detailed marks will be displayed on the notice board of the interviewing location. The List will contain the names of all the candidates who appeared for the interview along with the details of marks scored by each candidate under various parameters........
(2nd para) ..................
(3rd para) If none of the candidates scored the minimum qualifying marks as above, the location will be declared as "no candidate found suitable." Otherwise a maximum of 3 candidates starting with Sr.no.1 in the list published on the notice board will be treated as included in the "merit panel" for award of dealership for that location. This result will also be available on the web site of the oil company.
b) ........
17.2 VALIDITY OF MERIT PANEL The merit panel will be valid for a period of one year from the date of commissioning of the dealership. If within this period, the dealership offer to the first empanelled candidate is to be withdrawn for any reason whatsoever or the dealership is terminated on account of wrong statement made in the application or any other reason like proven ineligibility (due to complaint etc) of the dealer or proven malpractice, IOC will have the option of awarding dealership to the next candidate in the merit panel if he/she meets the eligibility criteria and after necessary field verification."
7.1 It emerges from the said provision that the petitioner's contention that after first three candidates' names are cancelled on account of any complaints, the merit list should be operated in respect of other persons whose names appears in the merit list, is misconceived. The provisions under clause 17(a) provides, inter alia, that the "merit panel" would be of the first three highest scorers i.e. only those first three candidates whose scores/names are amongst first three ranks and names of all persons, which are mentioned in the list, are not to be considered as having been included in the "merit panel". According to the provision, merit panel comprises only first three highest scorers and not all candidates.
7.2 It is pertinent that as per the said provision, a list of all candidates who appeared for the interview is prepared.
However, such list does not constitute merit panel/merit list.
It is necessary to note that merit panel/merit list is different from the list of candidates who appeared for interview.
Merely because name of a candidate - who appeared for interview - is included in the list which enlists names of all candidates, does not mean that the candidate's name is included in the merit panel/list as well.
According to the said provision under clause 17(a) merit panel/list is made of only first three highest scorer. Differently put, the merit panel/list would comprise only three candidates who, amongst all candidates, are first 3 highest scorers.
The petitioner, undisputedly - rather even according to petitioner's admission - is not among the first 3 highest scorer and that therefore, he cannot be said to have been empanelled in the "merit panel/list".
In this view of the matter, petitioner's contention that whole merit panel/list could not have been cancelled and the candidates whose names are empanelled after names of the first 3 highest scorer should be considered for awarding RO dealership, are misconceived and unsustainable.
Actually, the "merit list" contained only 3 names (of first 3 highest scorers) and complaints against all 3 candidates were received and found to be "of some substance" and were thus accepted and their names were cancelled from the "merit panel/list." On account of cancellation of all 3 names in the merit panel/list, the said entire panel/list got cancelled.
The petitioner's name cannot be considered to be included in the "merit panel/list".
The question of considering fourth or fifth or sixth name in the list does not arise in view of the provision under clause 17(a). The aforesaid contention of the petitioner thus fails and deserves to be rejected. The action of corporation cannot be considered arbitrary. Therefore also, the contention fails. Accordingly, the contention is rejected.
8. Besides the aforesaid aspect, in view of other relevant provision under the policy, the grievance of the petitioner in present petition cannot be and does not deserve to be entertained. According to Clause 17.2 of the policy, the life of merit panel is only of one year. Therefore, upon expiry of one year, the merit panel would also expire and it cannot be operated further by the respondent corporation. Clause 17.2 specifically provides that "the merit panel will be valid for a period of one year from the date of commissioning of the dealership. ...."
8.1 In view of the said provision present petition which is filed after more than 1 year does not deserve to be entertained because even if it is assumed that names of other candidates can be said to be contained in "merit panel/list" and such list subsisted after cancellation of names of first 3 highest scorer then also, as alternative position, the list would expire on expiry of 1 year after 15.2.2010 (i.e. the date on which the list was finalized) whereas the petition came to be filed on 11.7.2011, i.e. after expiry of 1 year. Thus, now, after such long time, the respondent corporation even otherwise cannot be directed to operate any list and to award RO dealership on that basis.
9. In this view of the matter and in light of facts of present case, the impugned decision cannot be said to be contrary to the corporation's policy and/or arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court would therefore not interfere with the corporation's decision and action.
9.1 Under the circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out any case in support of his contention that his case for awarding dealership should have been considered. Therefore, the petition fails and deserves to be rejected and is rejected.
Mr. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that it may be clarified that it would be open to the petitioner to make application, as and when fresh advertisement inviting applications may be issued. It goes without saying that since petitioner's application has not been rejected on account of any complaint against him, ordinarily, there would not be any objection or bar against making fresh application so far as present petitioner is concerned, of course, subject to petitioner complying all terms and conditions of the fresh advertisement, which may be issued by the respondent corporation.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top