IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37706 of 2009(G)
1. CHRISTOPHER.S., S/O. SAMUEL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
... Respondent
2. REGIONAL MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM
3. TERRITORY MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM
For Petitioner :SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :12/01/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 37706 of 2009-G
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was an applicant for appointment as LPG
distributorship of the first respondent Corporation in the PMP (Para Military
Personnel) category at Palode in Thiruvananthapuram District. Ext.P1 is the
notification issued in this regard. After the process was over, he was
arrayed as third in the panel which is evidenced by Ext.P4. Later, the first
and second ranked candidates were disqualified, making him eligible for
consideration. After the detailed verification, the respondents have
disqualified him also, going by Ext.P7 which is under challenge in this writ
petition.
2. The main ground for disqualification is that there is violation of
item No.14.2 in the application format, viz. that the petitioner failed to
maintain the amount in the bank account for a minimum period of three
months from the date of application or the interview whichever is earlier.
3. Attacking the validity of Ext.P7, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the same cannot be taken as a ground for disqualification in
the light of clause 19(g) of Ext.P1 notification. It cannot be said that the
wpc37706 /2009 2
statement made by him in the application was incorrect. Violation of item
14.2 is therefore not a matter which is covered by the grounds for rejection
of the application or disqualification as provided under Ext.P1 and
therefore rejection as per Ext.P7 cannot be supported.
4. It is the averment of the petitioner that in the application the
petitioner has produced his bank statement, according to which, the balance
amount in the account was Rs.14767.53 as on 19.1.2009. It is admitted in
para 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner did not maintain the same
balance continuously for a period of three months as he was regularly
operating the account. In fact, it is pointed out that at some point of time
the transaction was high, upto Rs.71,567/-. It is therefore argued that the
premise under which the petitioner has been disqualified, cannot be
supported.
5. The relevant clause requires the applicant to maintain the amount
for a minimum period of three months from the date of application or the
interview, whichever is earlier. Herein, obviously at the time of interview
the above aspect was taken into consideration on the face value. After the
field verification alone the true facts were found out. Therefore, the
petitioner was arrayed as No.3 in Ext.P4 mainly on the basis of the
information given in the application and not on the basis of any verification
wpc37706 /2009 3
at that point of time. Plainly the same will not therefore confer any right to
get appointment straight away. As there is no dispute that the petitioner did
not maintain the amount in the S.B. account for a period of three months
from the date of application, I am of the view that the respondents were
justified in passing Ext.P7. There is no illegality or irregularity in the
procedure adopted. Violation of item No.14.2 in the application format
was therefore taken into account by them for disqualifying the petitioner.
In the above view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is
dismissed.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/