R SUGITHA Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed, seeking for the following relief:

(2.) The first respondent, Indian Oil Corporation Limited [hereinafter referred to as 'IOCL'] issued a notification on 06.02.2008 calling for applications from the Candidates for the purpose of allotting distributorship of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) for Kallakurichi Region, Villupuram District against the quota reserved for 'Women'. The petitioner along with others had applied for consideration of grant of distributorship as notified. The IOCL had provided an elaborate Brochure for consideration of candidates by appointing a Sub Committee at various levels for scrutinizing and filtering the applications. The petitioner along with others was subjected to the detail process of selection and she was empanelled along with other candidates on 19.05.2009. The candidates were given ranking on the basis of the marks obtained by them under various heads as mentioned below: <TAB> <FRM>JUDGEMENT_249_LAWS(MAD)1_2018_1.html</FRM> </TAB>

(3.) As per the ranking published as above, the petitioner was ranked No.1 having secured 89.23 marks out of 100 marks. Thereafter, a field verification was conducted on 04.07.2009. However, eventually, no allotment was made to the petitioner despite she was ranked No.1 in the selected panel of candidates. While so, the second respondent published a second list of empanelled candidates on 22.09.2009 notifying that the third respondent was eligible candidate with higher marks, i.e. 95 out of 100. On verification, the petitioner had come to know that against the original notification of the result dated 19.06.2009, the third respondent was representing that the Sub Committee had failed to evaluate her application properly and certain marks were not allotted in spite of her eligibility. The third respondent's contention was that under the head 'capability to provide finance', the total marks allotted for the said category was '7' and the third respondent was not granted any marks against the said category. Therefore, she was assigned rank No.3 having secured 88.00 marks out of 100 marks.On the basis of the representation of the third respondent, it appears that later 7 marks against the above said category, 'capability to provide finance', were added to the third respondent and she was declared to have secured 95 marks out of 100 and accordingly, she was ultimately awarded the distributorship. Challenging the second list of empanelled candidates dated 22.09.2009 insofar as the third respondent is concerned, the petitioner is before this Court.