K MUNIRAJA Vs. TERRITORY MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been declared as successful candidate for dealership in distribution of LPG Gas for the domestic purpose at Palani District under "Schedule Caste" category and subsequently he was rejected by the respondents, which made the petitioner to approach this court.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: As per the advertisement dated 6.2.2008, the petitioner applied for LPG distributorship to the Respondents corporation under the schedule caste category. He contended that interview was held on 5.8.2009, in which he was awarded 27.33 marks out of 30 marks and was declared as first empanelled candidate for LPG distribution in Palani District. THEreafter, the Dealership ought to be awarded after the field verification by the respondents corporation. As per clause 10 of the brochure published by the respondent corporation in June 2007, on field verification the petitioner did not give the supporting documents to prove that he worked in Anjappar Restaurant, Coimbatore as well as Nandakumar Petroleum, Karur. By the impugned order, the petitioner's candidature was rejected by the respondent on 2.11.2009. THE said impugned order is the subject matter of the writ petition.

(3.) MR.S.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner complied with all the formalities that is the reason why he was called for an interview and he was declared as first empanelled candidate with highest mark namely 27.33. The interview committee was convinced that he possessed the qualification for allotment of LPG distributorship. The documents produced by the petitioner were taken into consideration in the interview and a decision was taken only after the aforesaid exercise only. Learned counsel stressed the point that in clause 12 of the brochure which is occurring at page No.10, "experience" has been given as one of the conditions for awarding LPG dealership. With regard to proof of experience, certificate that has been mentioned is required to be produced at the time of verification and not at the time of interview. The documents were subsequently submitted to the authorities issued by the ex-employees and those documents have been produced before this court by way of filing additional typed set. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the ex-employee did not deny the employment of the petitioner. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the employers did not repudiate the claim of the petitioner relating to employment and it is only stated that supporting documents were not given in time.