KAUSHAL KISHORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions are directed against the same selection process whereby Navin Kumar (respondent No. 7 in both the writ petitions), has been appointed for retail outlet dealership of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') (respondent No. 6) for village Hulasganj, district Jehanabad. The common feature in both the writ petitions is that Navin Kumar (respondent No. 7 in both the writ petitions), has been appointed to the exclusion of the petitioners of both the writ petitions. Hence the two writ petitions.

(2.) The entire facts in this judgment would be taken from the pleadings in C.W.J.C. No. 6819 of 1999, except paragraph 9 hereinbelow which alone deals with C.W.J.C. No. 2927 of 1999.

(3.) The Corporation had issued an advertisement which had appeared in the local dailies on 14-6-1998 (Annexure-1), inviting applications for appointment of retail outlet dealers for eight places in Bihar including the place in question, namely, Hulasganj, in the district of Jehanabad. The condition of advertisement which has given rise to these writ petitions are set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :3.1. The petitioners, respondent No. 7, and others submitted their applications. The entire selection process was conducted by the Dealers Selection Board (respondent No. 2) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The interview took place on 5-2-1999 and it had recommended the names of three persons to the Corporation which included the petitioners, respondent No. 7 and a third person who has not been impleaded as a party respondent. I am informed by the learned counsel for the Board as well as the Corporation that the Board publishes a list of three persons typed in alphabetical order, copies of which are pasted on the notice board and sent to the Corporation, whereafter the Corporation causes field investigation of all the three persons. After the field inspection is over, the Board discloses to the Corporation the order in which three persons have figured in its panel in order of merit. Thereafter the Corporation issues the letter of intent to the first candidate who figures in order of merit in the panel. In the present case, respondent No. 7 had figured at serial No. 1 in order of merit in the panel and, therefore, the Corporation had issued the letter of intent dated 20-6-1999 (Annexure-7/A to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 7), whereby he was asked to arrange a suitable piece of land of requisite measurement on lease to the Corporation for a period of 30 years on which, after the Corporation's approval, structures as per the Corporation's design and specification have to be constructed and certain other requirements mentioned in detail therein have to be fulfilled. Soon after the letter of intent was issued, the petitioner submitted an undated representation (Annexure-4), to the Board as well as the Corporation alleging therein with reasonable detail that the income of respondent No. 7 during the financial year 1997-98 had exceeded two lakhs. The Board examined the petitioner's representation (Annexure-4), and rejected the same by the impugned order dated 5-7-1999 (Annexure 5). Hence the writ petition.