SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 17th July 2012 passed by the Deputy General Manager, Respondent no.3 enclosing the speaking order in which it has been held that the petitioner while submitting application for LPG Distributorship suppressed the fact about his father, placing basic reliance on the written statement filed by the petitioner in Title Suit The short facts of the case is that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Oil Corporation") issued an advertisement dated 31st December 1997 (annexure-1) for the appointment of LPG Dealer under the general category. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed the application on 10th February 1998 as the last date for the submission of the application was 13th February 1998. Raman Kumar Mishra, respondent no.5 had also applied for LPG Dealership against the aforesaid advertisement.

(2.) As that advertisement was not acted upon, the Oil Corporation published a 2nd advertisement dated 28th August 2000 (Annexure-1/A) under the same category where Clause 10 with note and sub-clause (ii) mentioned that the intending candidates were to file the application on or before 12th October 2000 at the address mentioned in Clause 9 but the persons who have applied against 1997 advertisement, were also to submit their application annexing the receipt of the same. In Clause 2 it has been mentioned that the qualification would remain the same as of earlier advertisement. Further condition has been attached that those who have already deposited the fee were not required to again deposit the same. The panel was prepared and the petitioner was paced at Sl.no. 1 by the Dealers Selection Committee for appointment of Dealer of LPG at Ramnagar whereas respondent no.5 was placed at Sl. No.2. Field inspection was done, report was submitted and conditions attached to the advertisement were found to have been satisfied as petitioner was found to have possessed all the criteria mentioned in the advertisement.

(3.) Raman Kumar Mishra, respondent no.5 filed a complaint with the Oil Corporation making allegation of suppression of certain facts about petitioner's parentage. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed vide CWJC No. 846 of 2004 where it has been disclosed that the petitioner is not the son of Birendra Kumar Sharma, rather he is son of Narendra Kumar Sharma on the basis of written statement filed in Title Suit No. 63 of 2000 pending before the Munsif at Bettiah, District West Champaran.