JYOTIKA ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Bhardwaz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Other respondents are not represented.

(2.) The instant writ petition had been filed by the petitioner challenging the decision of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in selecting the private respondent Nos. 7 to 9 for allotment of retail outlet dealership and also for setting aside the select list dtd. 14/5/2013.

(3.) The facts enumerated in the instant writ petition are that an advertisement was issued in the local dailies, including "The Assam Tribune" and "Asomiya Pratidin", whereby the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) invited applications from intending applicants for appointment of retail outlet dealers in various notified locations. For the purpose of the instant case, the location is Balijan NH-31. From the advertisement so issued, it reveals that the proposed retail outlet in the said location was reserved for woman. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner along with various other candidates submitted their applications. Thereupon, the respondent authorities held the selection and published a select list dtd. 14/5/2013 thereby short-listing respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action of the respondent IOCL authorities in making the selection without taking into consideration 60 marks which specifically dealt with "capability to provide infrastructure and facilities" and "capability to provide finance". It is the case of the petitioner that as the respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9, who had been duly selected vide the impugned select list dtd. 14/5/2013, did not opt for availing "corpus fund scheme", the petitioner's credentials in respect to "capability to provide infrastructure and facilities" and "capability to provide finance" ought to have been taken into consideration by the respondent authorities vis-a-vis respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9. As the same having not been done, the petitioner therefore has assailed the impugned select list dtd. 14/5/2013 and has also challenged the selection process.