SHAM LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Oil Selection Board constituted by the Indian Oil Corporation for the State of Haryana, made a recommendation for the allotment of a Retail Outlet at Panchkula in favour of (i) Babu Ram and (ii) Raj Kumar. In pursuance to this recommendation, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. issued a letter of Intent in favour of Babu Ram. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 15230 of 1993 (Sham Lal v. Union of India) and 303 of 1994 (Sat Pal Singh v. Union of India), have been filed to challenge the selection / recommendation made by the Board and the consequential letter of Intent issued by the Corporation. Another petition viz. Civil Writ petition No. 16434 of 1993 has been filed by Raj Kumar whose name had been placed at No. 2 by the Board, with a prayer that the selection of Babu Ram should be quashed and that the Corporation be directed to issue a letter of intent in his favour. The primary contention in all these petitions is that "the marks were manipulated and changed to favour unmerited Babu Ram on extraneous considerations" and that the selection made by the Board is not just and fair. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that since all the three petitions relate to the same selection, these can be disposed of by a common order. They have referred to the pleadings in Civil Writ Petition No. 15230 of 1993. These may be briefly noticed.

(2.) On 29/04/1993, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation), invited applications for the appointment of a Dealer for a Retail Outlet at Panchkula, from amongst the candidates belonging to the category of Scheduled Castes. It was inter alia provided that the candidate should have been a resident of Ambala, Kurukshetra or Yamuna Nagar "for a period not less than five years immediately preceding the date of application." The applications on the prescribed form had to be submitted on or before 14/06/1993.

(3.) In response to this advertisement, the Corporation received 64 applications. On scrutiny, the Divisional Manager found that only 13 applications including that of the petitioner were complete. However, the Board called all the applicants for interview. The petitioner avers that even before the start of the interview on 24/08/1993, it was being alleged that certain rich and wealthy persons "of other castes" were "operating from behind the stage." The candidates were interviewed on August 24 and 25, 1993. The petitioner was interviewed for about five minutes on 24/08/1993. On that date, the petitioner avers that respondent No. 6 "was heard shouting very loudly about the telephonic order of the staff member of the petroleum Ministry for allotting this Petrol Pump to Shri Raj Kumar, respondent No. 8." He alleges that the interview was a farce. The Board had no basis for assessing the candidates regarding their business ability as it did not have the Feasibility Report as required under the provisions of the Manual. It has also been alleged that the marks were not allotted on the day of interview and that