KANWAR SINGH KADYAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON August 20,1988, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited invited applications for allotment of retail outlet dealership at Subana in district Rohtak. The petitioner was one of the applicants. He was interviewed on December 11, 1990. Vide letter dated October 27, 1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P -14 with the writ petition, the petitioner was informed that he had not been selected for the award of the dealership/distributorship. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The primary challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that it is violative of the instructions issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide letter dated March 31, 1993. According to the petitioner, the constitution of the Oil Selection Board had been changed by the Government in January, 1993. Thereafter, the instructions were issued vide circular dated March 31, 1993 wherein it was provided that in cases where merit panels were finalised by the previous Oil Selection Board but not communicated to the Oil Companies, the newly constituted Boards will release the merits panels to the Oil Companies for further action. The petitioner claims that he had been duly selected and in accordance with the terms of the circular his name should have been forwarded by the Board to the oil Company.

(2.) THE Oil Company and the Board have been impleaded as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. A written statement has been filed on their behalf. It ha been inter alia averred that the interview for the outlet in dispute had been conducted by the previous Board comprising of Justice Nazir Ahmed (Retd.) Smt. Rashmi Shroff and Shri M.P. Eshwarappa on 15th September, 1990 at Hotel Karan, Kama Lake, Karnal. The third member of the Board, as per the record, did not participate in the interview. According to the comparative Statement of performance of candidates interviewed by the then Board the petitioner was placed at No. 1 Shri Rajesh Chikara at No. 2 and Shri Navneet Kumar at No. 3." The names of three persons were sent for investigation. Though the investigation report had been received but the Board "had not finalised the merit panel during their continuation. After constitution of the Board in January, 1993, the Board initiated action in the present case keeping in view" the guidelines "contained in the Manual of Selection in the year 1993 had received a number of complaints against the eligibility of all the empanelled candidates. The said Board "after giving opportunity to the petitioner and other two candidates who have been placed at Nos. 2 and 3 came to the conclusion that it was a fit case in which the location (Subana) should be readvertised." On this basis, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature and the decision to invite fresh applications for the award of dealership has been supported.

(3.) A perusal of the letter dated March 31, 1993, shows that the Government of India had decided that "all pending cases where earlier Oil Selection Boards could not finalise the selection before their termination, will be transferred to the respective State Level Boards for completing the selection process." The manner of disposal was also laid down. It was inter alia provided that the "cases where merit panels were finalised by the previous Oil Selection Boards, but not communicated to the Oil Companies, the present Oil Selection Board will release the merit panels to the Oil Companies for further action, the number of such cases is reported to be 54." All "the locations for which interviews were held but merit panels were not finalised by the previous OSBs will be readvertised for selection of dealers/distributors." What is the position in the present case?