JANARDAN PRASAD PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the aforesaid writ petitions involve common controversy between the same parties, the same have been heard analogously being connected with each other and are being decided by this common judgment, which will have binding effect in both the matters.

(2.) The facts of both the aforesaid writ petitions, according to the Petitioner, in brief are that an advertisement dated 1 st July, 2009 was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter in short called as the "Corporation') for selection of Kisan Seva Kendra (Retail Outlet) Dealers at various locations, pursuant to which the Petitioner applied for such dealership with regard to the location situated at Pure Rudai (Vari), Block Pratappur, Tehsil Handia, District Allahabad and the Respondent No. 6 also applied for such location. Out of several candidates who applied for such dealership, names of following three candidates were short-listed:

(3.) Ultimately, after the interview held on 16th March, 2010 the Petitioner was empanelled as second empanelled candidate, whereas the Respondent No. 6 was placed as first empanelled candidate when leaving aside all other candidates, the candidate at Serial No. 1, as aforesaid, became third. The dispute raised by the Petitioner herein is with regard to awarding of marks in connection with capability to provide infrastructure and facility. The Petitioner had been awarded 30.03 marks, whereas the Respondent No. 6 had been awarded 31.92 marks. According to the Petitioner, when the Respondent No. 6 is co-owner of the land proposed by him for Kisan Seva Kendra, the description of the land, as has been given by the Respondent No. 6, is incorrect in nature. The Petitioner contended that one Mr. Madhusudan Pandey, who is member of the Consolidation Committee of the concerned Village Pure Rudai (Vari), through his letter dated 16th September, 2009 addressed to the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, U.P., Lucknow brought to his notice the fact that the land proposed by the Respondent No. 6 was under consolidation proceedings and without any logical conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings, the Respondent No. 6 could not offer his land for setting up of the aforesaid Kisan Seva Kendra.