SOUMYA SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an applicant for being awarded dealership to a petroleum outlet. The 5th respondent was selected on being awarded higher marks for her alleged experience in automobile company. The petitioner was aggrieved by the selection and had given a complaint on 27.07.2012 to the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager of Indian Oil Corporation Limited that the experience certificate provided by the winning candidate, namely, the 5th respondent was not genuine and that IOCL should get it properly verified.

(2.) THE IOCL was reported to have carried on an investigation and found that the experience certificate said to have been issued by M/s Mehra Motors was genuine and on verification reiterated its decision that her attendance with M/s Mehra Motors on honorary basis as a Manager from January, 2011 was genuine.

(3.) THE petitioner had not been favoured with any decision of the nature of investigation but she had elicited through an inquiry under RTI Act, the decision taken by the IOCL upholding the decision already made and responding also to an inquiry as to why the petitioner was not joined in any form of investigation, by stating that it was not feasible for security reasons. The petitioner makes a challenge to the decision and brings before the Court intrinsic material to show that the certificate which is reported to have been found genuine must have been an interpolation and the marks awarded on the basis of such certificate could not be justified. The further contention is that the manner of disposal of a complaint as contemplated under the brochure was also not complied with, in that the requirement is that the complainant must be joined in such an investigation process and informed about the outcome of such an inquiry. The counsel would make reference to Clause 8(B) of the Brochure which reads as under: -