PRODYUT KUMAR SARDAR Vs. ASIT KRISHNA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the mandamus appeals are directed against the same order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 20135 (W) 2009 on 29.04.2014.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present appeals, in short, are as follows: -

(3.) INDIAN Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter described as the I.O.C. Ltd.) published a notice in a Bengali daily inviting applications for the appointment of LPG distributor at Ghatal in the district Paschim Medinipur (Scheduled Caste category). Several aspirants including the Writ Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition submitted applications in the prescribed forms in response to the aforesaid notice. Thereafter, an interview was called, in which, the Writ Petitioner appeared on the scheduled date, i.e., 11.07.2008. The Respondent No. 5 and many other applicants also participated in the interview. Result was not published after the interview. Subsequently, the Writ Petitioner, as well as, four other candidates had been called for a re -interview on 23.08.2008. The Writ Petitioner attended in that reinterview and three other candidates called for such re -interview also participated in the said re -interview within the scheduled time, but the Writ Petitioner did not find the Respondent No. 5 to attend the said re -interview held on 23.08.2008. Subsequently, the Writ Petitioner came to know that the Respondent No. 5 was called by the screening committee over telephone to attend the re -interview and the Respondent No. 5 attended the re -interview at 8.45 p.m., i.e., long after the scheduled time on the day. The Writ Petitioner further came to know that the Respondent No. 5 had been ultimately selected for the distributorship, and letter of intent had been issued in favour of the Respondent No. 5, appointing him as the distributor of the LPG for the area of Ghatal within the district Paschim Medinipur, for which, the Writ Petitioner was an applicant. The petitioner, therefore, felt that undue advantage was given to the Respondent No. 5 while granting the distributorship in question in favour of the Respondent No. 5 and, therefore, the Writ Petitioner challenged the appointment of the Respondent No. 5 as the LPG distributor for the area of Ghatal within the district Paschim Medinipur by the I.O.C. Ltd. The I.O.C. Ltd. as well as the Respondent No. 5 contested the Writ Petition.