VIKASH RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vikash Rao is before this Court for a direction to quash the order dated 15.07.2015 issued by the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gorakhpur Divisional office, Gorakhpur; for a direction to restrain the respondents from taking any action on the basis of order impugned and for a direction to the respondents to forthwith issue the Letter of Intent to the petitioner on the basis of his selection dated 10.04.2013 for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership (Petrol Pump) at the site between mile stone no.23 to 26 on Kasaya-Deoria Road (State Highway-79) District Deoria pursuant to advertisement dated 26.10.2011 within stipulated period.

(2.) This much is reflected from the record that the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Lucknow (in short "the Corporation") issued an advertisement in 'Dainik Jagran' dated 26.10.2011, whereby applications were invited for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealers with regard to several sites in the State. The applications were also invited for Retail Outlet Petrol Pump Dealership in question on Kasya-Deoria Road (State Highway-79) between Mile Stone No.23-26 specified at SN 225 of the said advertisement. The petitioner being fully qualified and eligible also applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. The application so submitted was accompanied by several documents including proof of ownership of requisite land and a photocopy of the pass book of the petitioner with regard to Account No.3157567504 of Central Bank at Gadrampur Branch, Deoria and other documents. It is claimed that an amount of Rs.10,40,000/- was available in the account of the petitioner on the relevant date i.e. 23.12.2011. Consequently, in response to his application he had been called for an interview, which was held on 10.4.2013. On the said date total five applicants were interviewed and the petitioner was declared as duly selected for allocation of Retail Outlet Dealership in question. A photocopy of displayed mark sheet dated 10.4.2013 is also appended as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the aforesaid mark sheet would demonstrate that other four candidates namely Ashutosh Kumar Rai, Farware Alam Siddiqui, Pramod Kumar Jaiswal and Sanjay Jaiswal were categorised as not qualified on account of their having secured less than 60 marks on the basis of various parameters specified for selection. In the said marksheet the petitioner stood at first position having 82.74 marks out of total 100 marks. It is submitted that based upon the aforesaid selection a letter of intent ought to have been issued to the petitioner but a complaint was made by Pramod Kumar Jiaswal against the selection of the petitioner, however, the said complaint was rejected by the General Manager, U.P. State Office-1 of India Oil Corporation Ltd. by order dated 25.6.2014. In the meantime, Pramod Kumar Jaiswal has filed Writ Petition No.62083 of 2014 (Pramod Kumar Jaiswal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.) challenging the selection of the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 28.11.2014. It is submitted that inspite of aforesaid facts, the letter of intent was not issued in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager vide order dated 15.7.2015 has proceeded to cancel the candidature of the petitioner for the proposed location on the basis of vigilance report.

(3.) In this background, Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare have contended that the entire vigilance enquiry had been made by the respondents behind the back and at no point of time they have proceeded to issue any notice to the petitioner in this regard and inspite of completion of all the requisite formalities, the respondents had proceeded to cancel the candidature of the petitioner and as such it is contended that the order impugned is in violation of the principle of natural justice. Once a complaint was made against the petitioner and the competent authority had examined the matter and rejected the said objection vide order dated 25.6.2014 upholding the selection of the petitioner and once all the objections have been turned down, then the subsequent order impugned amounts to review of all earlier orders, which cannot sustain. Without any authority to review its earlier order, the respondents have proceeded to review the same, which is per se bad.