REKHA KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HUMAN nature is complex. It leads people to display their wealth in marriages, various parties and by building huge bungalows. Then it also leads people to conceal their wealth. The occasions, of course, are different. The instant case reveals concealment of income rather than its display because occasion has been a different one. The selection of respondent No. 4 - Jagdish Lal for allotment of LPG-distributorship, is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. His selection has been challenged on the ground that his income exceeds the criteria laid down in the advertisement issued by respondents 2 and 3 - Indian Oil Corporation. The prayer made by the petitioner, who herself was a candidate for the allotment of LPG distributorship is for quashing the selection of respondent No. 4 and for allotting the distributorship to her as she has been found in the list of selected candidate at Sr. No. 2.

(2.) A LPG distributorship became available under the open category for Cheeka, District Kaithal and the same was required to be allotted to an eligible person. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued by respondent No. 2 for allotment of LPG distributorship in respect of open category on 21.8.2000 (P- 1). In the advertisement eligibility conditions were mentioned. In Sub-clause (e) at Item 2, the criteria with regard to income was gross family income of not more than Rs. 2,00,000/- in the preceding financial year 1999-2000. The closing date for submitting the application was 6.10.2000. The petitioner applied on 5.10.2000 and deposited the application form with the Area Office, Karnal of respondent No. 2. The eligibility criteria for awarding the LPG distributorship was circulated along with the application form. The petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 10.5.2001 and she was to appear on 5.6.2001 at 10.30 a.m. She claimed to have submitted all the requisite documents as well as affidavit at the time of interview. Out of 80 candidates interviewed, the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 2 and respondent No. 4 was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the select list. Result was declared on the notice board of respondent No. 2 and the hand written result dated 8.6.2001 has been placed on record (P-5). The allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4, who has been placed at Sr. No. 1 in the select list, is in fact ineligible for allotment because his income exceeds far more than the maximum limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- as fixed by respondent No. 2. A representation in that regard was made by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 alleging that respondent No. 4 has filed wrong declaration mentioning his annual income to be less than Rs. 2,00,000/-. It has been alleged that respondent No. 4 has concealed material facts from respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner is stated to have declared his annual income as well as experience as a Science Mistress correctly and truly whereas respondent No. 4 is alleged to have no experience who has falsely claimed to be an agriculturist. In para 9 of the petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner has gross annual income of Rs. 3,55, 184.80. The break up has been given in sub-paras of para 9 and the same are summed up as under :-

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 in its written statement has accepted the broad factual position that respondent No. 4 was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the select list and the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 2. It has further been conceded by respondent No. 2 that representation dated 12.7.2001 was made by the petitioner with regard to concealment of income and other facts. The representation is stated to have referred to the Chairman, Dealers Selection Board, Haryana (respondent No. 3) who had advised the General Manager of Delhi State Office of respondent No. 2 to conduct an enquiry into the allegations. A committee has been constituted by the General Manager consisting of two officers of the level of Chief Manager and the report of the committee was awaited. It is, however, claimed that as per the declaration of income in his application, respondent No. 4 was eligible as his income declared in the application is within the prescribed limit. His selection is claimed to be made by the Dealers Selection Board on the basis of the information furnished by him. In the preliminary objections, respondent No. 2 has asserted that this Court should not sit as a Court of appeal over the selection process and reliance in this regard has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.A. Slounke v. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434. It has also been asserted that the instant petition is premature as the report of the committee appointed by respondent No. 2 is awaited.