LAWS(PAT)-2016-9-48

RANJU SINGH Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD; SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HPCL, BARAUNI TERMINAL; DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, HPCL, NORTH CENTRAL ZONE; SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER (RETAIL), HPCL, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN; SUDHA KUMARI & ARCHANA NAHATA PARTNERSHIP

Decided On September 01, 2016
RANJU SINGH Appellant
V/S
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD; SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HPCL, BARAUNI TERMINAL; DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, HPCL, NORTH CENTRAL ZONE; SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER (RETAIL), HPCL, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN; SUDHA KUMARI And ARCHANA NAHATA PARTNERSHIP Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.04.2011 issued by respondent no. 2 to the extent the same disposed of the complaint dated 16.02.2011 lodged by the petitioner stating that the award of zero marks by the evaluation committee in respect of the lease document of the petitioner was correct; and for connected reliefs.

(3.) The short facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that on 20.06.2009 an advertisement was published in the "Hindustan" newspaper for the dealership of the retail outlet of 144 locations. The petitioner applied for the location KHUTAUNA BAZAR SE PHULPARAS 2 KILOMETER KE ANDAR in terms of serial no. 67 of the advertisement under the open women category in the district of Madhubani. In due course she was called for the interview scheduled to be held on 10.02.2010, in which she appeared along with all requisite documents including the lease deed. It appears that she secured 49 marks in the statement of performance. However, all candidates who appeared in the interview, including the petitioner, were awarded zero marks for land. Pursuant to various complaints, the said interview was cancelled by the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short, "HPCL") by its letter dated 19.10.2010 for holding a fresh interview. In the second interview held on 08.02.2011, the petitioner and respondent no. 5 were the only two candidates. The petitioner produced a lease deed which was verified in the course of the interview.