RENU CHAUDHARY Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the selection of respondent No. 3 Asha Rani for the allotment of L. P. G. Dealership/Distribution at Dhinanagar district Gurdaspur is tainted by arbitrariness and mala fides and whether the petitioner is entitled to be allotted dealership in place of respondent No. 3 are the questions which arise for determination in this writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) For the purpose of deciding this controversy, it is necessary to peep through the relevant facts, which are noticed as under :- Respondent No. 1 advertised a notice in the newspaper vide annexure P-1 for L. P. G. Distributorship for HP Gas for Dhinanagar, Gurdaspur and other places under open category, reserved for women only. The petitioner, respondent No. 3 and others submitted applications along with required documents. The petitioner was called for interview at 9.30 a.m. by the respondent through letter dated 6-1-2001 for 31-1-2006. After this interview on the same date, award list was also declared in which respondent No. 3 was placed at serial No. 1 on merit, whereas petitioner was shown at No. 2 on merit. The petitioner learnt about this selection and decided to question the selection of respondent No. 3 mainly on the ground that the recommendations made by the Board are wrong and are vitiated by arbitrariness, bias, and mala fides. It was further pointed out that her claim has been wrongly ignored and in fact, petitioner is a student of M. Sc. and completed her B. Sc. (Hons.). She is unemployed, unmarried and her parents can afford and invest the amount for carrying the dealership of LPG. She has further disclosed that in comparison to respondent No. 3 even if it be presumed that he has qualification equal to the petitioner, he cannot be equated with her for the simple reason that the petitioner is more qualified and in fact, the petitioner was to get more marks in totality. It is further categorically pleaded that the benefit of clause 8, which has been reproduced in para 7 of the petition is only to be given to respondent No. 3 in case other things are equal and in fact, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have misinterpreted the clause and while calculating the qualification marks has given preference of age, which is totally unwarranted and illegal and against the provisions of clause 8. A representation was also filed in this regard but to no effect and finally, it was prayed that the award list dated 31-1-2001 whereby respondent No. 3 was shown at No. 1 on the merit list and petitioner at No. 2 on the basis of clause, is totally wrong, against well settled principle of law in allotment of LPG Dealership/Distribution and all this necessitated the filing of the writ petition.

(3.) On the other hand, the petition has been contested by the respondents. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed joint written statement, whereas respondent No. 3 filed separate written statement. All the respondents by denying most of the assertions raised in the petition prayed that the petition be dismissed. However, I find that it has been categorically pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner had only a limited right of consideration alone and in pursuance to her application, her candidature was duly considered and on a comparison of inter se merit, respondent No. 3 was found more meritorious and selected for appointment. Selection was strictly in accordance with the guidelines and criteria laid down by the Ministry of Petroleum in the Policy Guidelines for section of Dealership and Distributorship. It is further pointed out that no superior vested right was acquired by the petitioner by possessing better educational qualifications. The minimum educational qualification prescribed is matriculate as a condition of eligibility. The merit for selection and appointment further is to be adjudged by respondent No. 2 on the basis of the criteria for selection laid down by the uniformly applied policy guidelines and the very basis of the petitioner's claim is wholly misconceived, erroneous and unfounded in law. It is further pointed out that the petitioner is 24 years old. She has done her B. Sc. (Hons.) and is still a student of M. Sc., whereas respondent No. 3 Asha Rani is more than 41 years of age and is working as a teacher for the last 15 years after doing her Matric/Higher Secondary education. Petitioner's father is a Sub-Divisional Engineer in the Punjab PWD and is drawing salary of Rs. 14,552/- per month; whereas father of respondent No. 3 expired 30 years ago in 1971 and as per application submitted by respondent No. 3, her mother has no source of income and she could not pursue her studies further, whereas mother of the petitioner was herself a candidate for the allotment of LPG Distributorship at Qadian. It is further pointed out that according to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas regarding the eligibility criteria, an applicant must be an Indian between 21 and 60 years of age, having Matric as minimum qualification, be resident of district concerned, should be having gross income of the family not exceeding Rs. two lacs and in fact, in view of the guidelines, unmarried women/widows above 40 years of age without earning parents and widows form a class/category by themselves have to be given priority over all other candidates not falling in this category provided they fulfil other conditions of eligibility. Moreover, it has been categorically pleaded that paramount consideration for selecting a Dealership/Distributorship is, ability, salesmanship, maturity, capability of providing infrastructure for running the business and not academic qualifications alone. The method of evaluation as per marks is to be awarded under different heads to the candidates by the Board and any independent head like better educational qualifications or financial resources alone will not determine superior merit of a candidate. It is finally prayed that selection was in accordance with the guidelines and does not suffer from any infirmity. Respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition.