DHANANJAY SINGH SON OF SHRI HIT NARAYAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, GOVT.OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INDIAN Oil Corporation has issued an advertisement inviting tenders for settlement of Kissan Seva Kendra at several places, one of the places was Salempur Bazar, Ara in the district of Bhojpur. Petitioner and respondent nos. 4 to 11 applied. Respondent No. 4 was empanelled after interview as the first candidate and subsequently letter of intent was issued in his favour. Petitioner raised objection against selection of respondent no. 4 which was ultimately rejected by the Indian Oil Corporation by their detail communication as contained in Annexure -13 to the interlocutory application. Petitioner being no. 2 empanelled candidate has thus challenged the selection of respondent no. 4, the first empanelled candidate.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 has appeared and filed a counter -affidavit to which rejoinder has been filed. Indian Oil Corporation has also filed a counter -affidavit to which rejoinder has also been filed. All parties being present and pleadings being completed with consent of all parties. The writ petition has been heard at this stage for its final disposal. Petitioner has raised three contentions. Firstly, Selection Board of the Oil Company acted arbitrarily and unfairly in awarding marks at the time of interview. His grievance is to award of marks in relation to experience. His second contention was with regard to number of trees on the land of respondent no. 4 which was not there on petitioner 'sland. His third contention is that respondent no. 4 was disqualified as he had been holding license under the Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Dealers ' Licensing Order, 1966 which had been cancelled by the Licensing Authority on alleged grounds of malpractice. Fourth ground of challenge was that the land as offered by the respondent no. 4 was not on the basis of valid document and respondent no. 4 in fact, had no title to the leased land in any manner. The respondent no. 4 had wrongly offered the land.

(3.) HAVING considered the matter, in my view, writ petition must fail for the reasons to be discussed hereinafter.