SATYA NARAIN DUBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitioners in the present petition had applied for award of distributorship for Liquefied Petroleum Gas at Dhanpur in District Chandauli. The Advertisement dated 7.9.2007 has been brought on record through a supplementary -affidavit dated 16.4.2012. The petitioners claim themselves to be eligible and were also interviewed on 21.5.2010. The Respondent No.4 was also an applicant and the result of the selection were declared on 22.5.2010 in which the petitioners were indicated at Serial No.2 in the Select Panel and respondent No.4 was at Serial No.1.

(2.) THIS petition questions the said selection on the ground that the respondent No.4 was ineligible and secondly the marks awarded to him as against the experience claimed by him was not in accordance with the guidelines provided in the brochure. It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.4 had filed a false experience Certificate which also appears to be forged and, therefore, any marks awarded on the basis of such experience Certificate also deserves to be discarded.

(3.) THE Respondent No.4 came up giving his explanation with regard to his experience that he had obtained his experience at M/s. Vijay Gas Service which was an Agency allotted to the widow of his younger brother Late Capt. V.P. Singh (Veer Chakra -1971 War). It is his case that he being the Member of the family and in those difficult family circumstances had taken up the task of managing the said Gas Service for which he was paid a certain amount. The experience Certificate dated 2.10.2007, therefore, became the bone of contention between the petitioners and the contesting respondent No.4. The petitioners allege that the said Certificate is absolutely false inasmuch as the respondent No.4 came to be appointed as a doctor in the Provincial Medical Services in November, 1976, and, therefore, his claim of such experience up to 2002 under the said Certificate was absolutely incorrect. The other contention of his ineligibility was also taken to be a ground that he could not have applied being in government service. It is undisputed that the respondent No.4 retired from service on 30.6.2008 much prior to the passing of the impugned orders.