SEEMA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited issued a notification for appointment of Distributors for Rajeev Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. vide Annexure P-1. It was also decided to appoint Distributor for location 'Mahadev' at Sr. No. 35 of Annexure P-1. Clause-3 of Annexure P-1 lays down a common eligibility criteria for all categories. Clause-4 provides a specific eligibility criteria for different categories, including defence personnel category. According to sub-clause(c)(i) of Clause-4, Defence Personnel means; personnel of armed forces and will cover widows/dependants of those who died in war, war disabled/disabled on duty, widows/dependents of those members of Armed Forces who died in harness due to attributable causes. The candidate applying under this category is required to produce Eligibility Certificate issued from Director General of Resettlement (DGR), Ministry of Defence and Government of India, sponsoring the candidate for Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak (hereinafter referred to as 'RGGLV' in short). According to Clause-3(b), the candidate should be resident of the town/village(s) of the advertised RGGLV location. Petitioner being fully eligible and qualified, submitted an application to respondent No. 2, which was assigned SAO No. 35/01. She annexed all the documents required as per Annexure P-1 including Jamabandi vide Annexure P-6. She was informed vide letter dated 10.12.2010 to supply the residence certificate as per the format attached, showing her to be resident of the advertised location. She obtained the certificate dated 15th Dec., 2010 vide Annexure P-9 from the competent authority. The certificate was to be furnished by the petitioner by 31st Dec., 2010. However, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on 07.01.2011. Petitioner obtained another residence certificate on 10.01.2011 vide Annexure P-13 from the competent authority, whereby her residence has been shown as 'Mahadev'. This certificate was also supplied by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. Petitioner made a representation to consider her case in view of Annexure P-13. However, the same has been rejected on 8th March, 2011 vide Annexure P-16.

(2.) Mr. B.B. Vaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the main objective for appointing Distributors from the category of defence personnel is to mitigate the hardship faced by the family members of this category after the death of bread-earner and also to take effective and meaningful steps towards their rehabilitation. He then contended that the certificate obtained by the petitioner vide Annexure P-9 was also in conformity with law and inadvertently only the word 'Sai' has been mentioned though village 'Mahadev' has also been mentioned in this certificate. He then contended that the petitioner has also obtained fresh certificate vide Annexure P-13 certifying her residence to be in village Mahadev. He finally contended that the certificate issued to the petitioner dated 10.01.2011 was required to be considered and the rejection of the case of the petitioner again on 08.03.2011 is arbitrary and unreasonable.

(3.) Ms. Akshi Chauhan and Mr. K.D. Sood, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have strenuously argued that the petitioner had been granted opportunity to furnish the requisite certificate of residence as per Annexure P-8 dated 10th Dec., 2010, but the petitioner has failed to supply the certificate of residence that she belongs to village Mahadev.