SATYABHAMA JENA Vs. DY GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed against the impugned Order Dated 14.8.2006 under Annexure -11 withdrawing the letter of intent issued in her favour for the proposed retail outlet dealership at location Choudwar to Khuntuni.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short 'The Corporation') made an advertisement for retail outlet dealership under the physically handicapped woman category vide advertisement dated 27.7.2004. The Petitioner applied along with other six persons for the retail outlet on the side of the road from Choudwar to Khuntuni in the district of Cuttack. The applications were scrutinized and the applications of three candidates were rejected on the ground that they did not meet the advertisement criteria. However, remaining four candidates including the Petitioner were issued with interview call letters on 8/9th of November, 2004. Thereafter on 11.11.2004, the Selection Committee inspected the three plots offered by candidates. The 4th candidate namely, Smt. Puspashree Samantaray did not offer any plot. The land offered by Smt. Manjula Panda did not meet HNAI's norms and was rejected by Land Inspection Committee. However, all the four candidates were called for the interview on 27.11.2004 before the Selection Committee. But out of four, only three candidates namely, the Petitioner Smt. Satyabhama Jena, Smt. Manjula Panda and Sri Puspashree Samantaray appeared in the interview. However, the 4th candidate namely Smt. Jamuna Khandual, who offered her land did not receive the interview call letter and, as such, she could not appear in the interview. However, the committee proceeded further and recommended the name of the Petitioner and the Corporation finalized the retail outlet dealership in favour of the Petitioner and issued Letter of Intent. The Corporation, vide their letter dated 15.11.2004, issued letter of intent to the Petitioner and the Petitioner completed all the formalities and deposited Rs. 2.00 lakhs towards security deposit.

(3.) ON perusal of the counter affidavit and the records produced by the Corporation by order of this court dated 13.3.2007, it appears that the interview call letter dated 9.11.2004 was not received by Smt. Jamuna Khandual which was returned unserved which was not noticed and this has happened due to dispatch of the same by the office at a very late stage and there was no gap of fifteen days between the date of dispatch of the letter and the date of interview. It was dispatched on 16.11.2004 through Speed Post for the interview to be held on 27.11.2004. But the letter was received back unserved after two days from the date of interview i.e. 29.11.2007 for which Smt Jamuna Khandual made a complaint and ultimately the matter was referred to the vigilance which came to the conclusion that letter of intent issued to the Petitioner Smt. Satyabhama Jena be cancelled and fresh selection process be initiated and that the Petitioner Smt. Satyabhama Jena was not at fault.