LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-70

JYOTSNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided On July 14, 2015
Jyotsna Appellant
V/S
Union of India And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri U. N. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma for the petitioner, Sri Avinash Srivastava for the respondent no. 1, Sri Vikas Budhwar for the respondents no. 2 to 5 and Sri S. K. Upadhyay for the respondent no. 6.

(2.) Facts, in brief, giving rise to the dispute, are as under.

(3.) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (herein-after referred to as "HPCL") issued an advertisement dated 16.09.2011 inviting application for appointment of retail outlet at various locations. Petitioner along with respondents no. 6 and 7 and others was one of the applicant for the location no. 27, Baheri to Nadeli Road (Up to Km Stone No. 3 from PWD Inspection House) District Bareilly under the open women (Ladies category). After processing the application and valuation of the sites offered by different candidates, interview was held on 19.10.2012 wherein petitioner was also called to appear. After interviewing the candidates a provisional panel was declared wherein respondents no. 6 and 7 were shown as first and second in the empanelled candidates and the petitioner was placed at serial no. 3. Petitioner made a complaint/representation with respect to 25 marks awarded to her in respect of infrastructure category under clause 9 of the guidelines. Another complaint was preferred by the respondent no. 7, the second empanelled candidate. Notices were issued to all the candidates on the two complaints fixing 14.11.2013 for personal hearing. Complaint made by respondent no. 7 was found to be baseless and was rejected. In so far as petitioner is concerned, it was found that petitioner has been awarded lesser marks in infrastructure category and was entitled to be given 10 more marks. The increase in marks resulted in change of merit panel as such respondent no. 6 who was first empanelled candidate was issued notice dated 19.03.2014 granting time to file her reply in respect of change in merit panel. Respondent no. 6 along with her reply submitted a letter dated 13.06.2014 along with affidavit of one Smt. Retu Agrawal, Proprietor of M/s R. M. Krishi Kendra, Dealer Indian Oil Corporation Limited to the effect that experience certificate submitted by the petitioner along with application on the letter head of M/s R. M. Krishi Kendra that she has worked as Manager on the said Petrol Pump is forged and fabricated and she has never worked with her petrol pump nor any experience certificate was issued. Petitioner was issued a notice to submit her reply to the aforesaid allegation. Vide letter dated 20.08.2014, petitioner submitted her reply annexing therewith notary affidavit of Smt. Retu Agrawal stating that experience certificate issued by her in favour of the petitioner was genuine. Faced with such a situation, respondent corporation constituted two members committee to investigate in the matter. The Committee visited Indian Oil Corporation retail outlet of M/s R. M. Krishi Kendra on 27.12.2014 and met Smt. Retu Agrawal who confirmed to the committee that fake experience certificate on the letter head of retail outlet was submitted by the petitioner and she never worked as Manager with the outlet and no certificate was ever issued. Written statement in this regard was obtained by the committee from Smt. Retu Agrawal on her letter head. Reference was also made by Smt. Retu Agrawal to a complaint case no. 3074 of 2014, Retu Agrawal Vs. Jyotsna filed by her against the petitioner before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (Uttarakhand) in respect of false experience certificate.