RAMAWATI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby it has been held that the petitioner does not qualify for impanelment on merit panel, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and are almost undisputed. An advertisement dated 7.9.2007 was published in the newspaper Dainik Jagran inviting application forms to provide distributorship of L.P.G for different districts including the District Rampur. Distributorship at Milak District Rampur was reserved for defence category (woman). The petitioner is widow of Captain Ramesh Singh who is an awardee of Shaurya Chakra by the President of India. Besides the petitioner, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, respondent No. 3 herein also applied for the same. The dispute is in between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 on the other hand. An application was filed by a 3rd woman but she was not even found qualified to be called for interview. Initially a merit list was prepared placing the petitioner at SI. No. 1 and the respondent No. 3 at SI. No. 2. The respondent No. 3 herein challenged the said order by means of the writ petition No. 26135 of 2008 which was disposed of by the judgement dated 6.5.2009 without deciding the lis on merits by providing that the representation of Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, respondent No. 3 herein may be disposed of, if possible, within a period of one month. As a consequent of the aforesaid judgement, the matter was reconsidered by the respondent No. 2 and on a re-consideration, this time, the merit list was changed and it was found that the petitioner is not entitled for empanelment on the merit list as she has not secured 40% marks which is pre-requisite condition for empanelment in view of condition number 14.2 as contained in the brochure for selection of" H.P Gas Distributors". The principal controversy involved herein centers round the interpretation of the said clause.

(3.) Heard Shri R.N.Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. It may be noted that notices were issued by the order dated 28.10.2009 to the respondent No. 3 who is represented by Shri R.K.Vaish, Advocate.