SANGHMITRA MANDELIYA Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: -

(2.) THE petitioner submitted her candidature for getting KSK dealership allocation in Mahgaon, District Gwalior. This is admitted by the parties that selection procedure for grant of KSK outlet is governed by a 'brochure' issued by the respondents (Annexure P -2). The petitioner's case was considered for selection and by communication dated 29.01.2013 (Annexure P -11), she was informed that she has been shortlisted in the said selection. However, the said selection of petitioner was cancelled by order dated 23.03.2014 (Annexure P -1). It is cancelled on the singular ground that the petitioner did not submit "Residence Certificate" along with her application as per the terms and conditions.

(3.) PER contra, Shri A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent relied on condition No. 10(g) and (h) of the brochure. Similar conditions mentioned in Clause 21 of same brochure were relied to contend that it was mandatory for the candidates to submit the relevant certificate along with the application. No addition/deletion/alteration is permissible subsequently. No additional documents whatsoever can be accepted. In the teeth of said provisions, the respondents have rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner. In addition, it is urged that not only petitioner's candidature is rejected by note sheet dated 09.03.2014 (Annexure R -3), the subject location at Mahgaon is also cancelled. Hence, the petitioner has no right. In support of this contention, he relied on : 2012 (2) MPLJ 110 (Meena Singh vs. Indian Oil Corporation); : 2013(3) MPLJ 466 (Pankaj Mantri vs. Indian Oil Corporation); : 2014 (2) MPLJ 459 (Jitendra Sharma vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation); and, : (2007) 4 SCC 410 (Shiv Kant Yadav vs. Indian Oil Corpn. and others). He relied on the order passed in W.P. No. 2489/2007 (Manish Kumar Shukla vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And another) (Annexure R -4). Lastly, he relied on an unreported judgment passed in W.P. No. 88/2009 (Devendra Kumar Vashishth Vs. IOC Limited). On the strength of this order, it is contended that petitioner is at liberty to submit his candidature afresh, in the event fresh advertisement is issued. But after cancellation of selection, she has no right to pursue the present petition.