NUTAN KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of both these petitions are that an advertisement was issued by respondent-Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') for setting up of retail outlet dealership at various places in the State of Himachal Pradesh on 16.9.2010 including Chirgaon, Tehsil Chirgaon, Distt. Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. As both the petitioners were interested in the allotment of the dealership in issue, they submitted their respective applications. After evaluation of the applications so submitted by the petitioners, a Committee constituted by the respondent-Corporation to evaluate the performance of the candidates vide Annexure P-3 appended with CWP No. 2571 of 2015 awarded 81.1 marks to Ms. Nutan Kumari and 85.6 marks to Ms. Kaveri Bhettan. Ms. Kaveri Bhettan was reflected as number one in the statement of performance.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the said evaluation, Ms. Nutan Kumari initially filed a complaint as provided for in para 18 of the brochure issued by IOCL for selection of petrol/diesel retail outlet dealership. As no action was being taken on the same, Ms. Nutan Kumari filed CWP No. 7936 of 2012 before this Court, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 19.10.2011 in the following terms:-

(3.) Pursuant to this, respondent-Corporation informed Ms. Nutan Kumari that she was not eligible to be granted dealership vide communication dated 13.7.2011 which stands assailed by way of CWP No. 7936 of 2012, i.e. Annexure P-8 therein. It is pertinent to mention that there was a reference in this communication that the complaint which stood made by Ms. Nutan Kumari against Ms. Kaveri Bhettan was investigated and found to be established. This was followed by another communication dated 5.8.2014 (Annexure P-18 in CWP No. 2571 of 2015) addressed both to Ms. Nutan Kumari and Kaveri Bhettan on the subject "Speaking Order-Complaint regarding Selection of KSK Location Chirgaon District Shimla H.P. Category: Open(W)", informing them that neither of them were found eligible for the purpose of allotment of dealership in question. This communication stands assailed in CWP No. 2571 of 2015.