IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15215 of 2008(J)
1. DR.RUGMINI BALASUBRAMANIAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
... Respondent
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL
3. DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER,
4. PRESIDENT, MARAYAMUTTOM SERVICE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :13/06/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.15215 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner and the 4th respondent which is a co-
operative society, were applicants for selection and appointment
of dealership of retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation at
Perumkadavila. After interview marks were awarded.
Subsequently, apparently on a complaint made by the 4th
respondent, marks were changed. This is under challenge before
me. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that before
changing the marks the petitioner was not heard. The petitioner,
therefore, seeks the following reliefs:
“(i) To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order calling upon the records pertaining to Exts.P-9
and P-11 and quash the same.
(ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing Respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the
petitioner as dealer of retail outlet at Perumkadavila in view of
her top position in Ext.P7.”
2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondents 1 to 3 submits that the procedure prescribed does
not contemplate a hearing of parties. According to him, when a
complaint is received from one of the applicants, that would be
2
sent for enquiry by an investigating officer who would look into
the complaint and submit a report, based on which appropriate
corrective measures would be taken. For this, there is no
necessity to hear the parties, is the submission made.
3. I have heard both parties.
4. I am unable to agree with the Standing Counsel
appearing for respondents 1 to 3. The procedure would have
been alright in the original award of marks. But when after
awarding marks and publishing the same, it is sought to be
corrected, naturally the parties are entitled to be heard in the
matter. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that
respondents 1 to 3 should reconsider the matter after affording
an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 4th
respondent before selecting one of them. This shall be done
within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
3