1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6977 OF 2009
Anita W/o Sidram Koli,
Age 41 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Plot No. T-18, Pratap Nagar,
Near Suraj Park, Shahanoorwadi,
Aurangabad .. PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1)
The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Petroleum Department,
New Delhi.
[copy to be served
on Standing counsel of
U.O.I.]
2) The Chief Divisional Retail
Sales Manager, Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., Pune Division,
885, Bhandarkar Institute Road,
Pune.
3) The General Manager, (Retail)
Indian Oil Bhavan,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
G-9, Ali Yawar Jung Marg,
Bandara (East), Mumbai-51.
4) Chief Executive Director (Retail)
Indian Oil Bhawan,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
G-9, Ali Yawar Jung Marg,
Bandara (East), Mumbai-51.
5) Ujwala V. Palspkar,
Age Major, Occu. Household,
R/o Kot Galli, Shinde Wada,
Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad ...RESPONDENTS.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
2
...
Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate holding for
Shri P.G. Rodge, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for R.No.1.
Shri V.G. Gangapurwala, Advocate for R.Nos. 2 to 4.
Shri R.G. Godbole, Advocate for R.No.5.
CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR
AND
S.S. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 9th March, 2010.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shinde,J.)
1. Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable
forthwith. Counsel appearing for respective
respondents waive notice. With the consent of the
parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.
This Writ Petition is filed seeking directions to
the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to allot retail outlet
dealership to the petitioner and for that purpose
issue necessary letters/orders. It is also prayed
that, the selection of respondent No. 5 for allotment
of Retail outlet Dealership at Mohol, Dist. Solapur
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
3
may be quashed and set aside.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that, she
belongs to ‘Mahadeo Koli’ caste, which is recognized
as `Scheduled Tribe’. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had
issued an advertisement in daily Lokmat dated
21-04-2009 thereby inviting applications for allotment
of retail outlet dealership at various places. In the
said advertisement, it was advertised that one of the
Retail Outlet at Mohol, Dist. Solapur was to be
allotted to a person belonging to ‘Scheduled Tribe
category’.
In the said advertisement, it was
specifically mentioned that, the candidate who desires
to be considered from the reserve category, is
required to produce the caste validity certificate at
the time of interview, otherwise the application of
the said candidate would be rejected. In this
advertisement it was also mentioned that, after the
interviews were conducted, a merit list would be
published and in case anyone has any grievance about
the said list, he could lodge the complaint within 30
days from the date of publication of the said list, to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
4
the respondent Authorities.
It is further case of the petitioner that, in
pursuance to the advertisement dated 21-04-2009, the
petitioner had applied to the respondent/authorities
along with all necessary documents including caste
validity certificate of the petitioner. After
scrutinizing all the documents the Authorities by
letter dated 29-07-2009 had called the petitioner and
other similarly situated candidates for interview,
which was scheduled to be held on 20-08-2009. In the
call letter, it was specifically mentioned that the
candidate was required to produce the original caste
validity certificate granted by the Scrutiny
Committee. It was also made clear that non production
of the caste validity certificate may lead to
disqualification / rejection of the candidature /
application.
4. In pursuance to the said call letter,
petitioner attended the said interview with all
relevant original documents including the caste
validity certificate. It is further case of the
petitioner that, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 selected
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
5
respondent No. 5 for allotment of the said Retail
Outlet Dealership instead the petitioner. According to
the petitioner, respondent No. 5 has been selected
though she does not fulfill the conditions stipulated
in the advertisement as also in the call letter. The
respondent No. 5 is not eligible to be selected for
allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership because neither
she possesses the caste validity certificate nor she
produced/submitted the same along with her application
or even at the time of interview.
After receiving information that, the
respondent No. 5 is not eligible to be allotted the
said Dealership at Mohol, Dist. Solapur, the
petitioner, applied under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for
Scheduled Tribes, at Pune asking for information about
the respondent No. 5’s caste validity certificate.
The Scrutiny Committee, in response thereto, by its
letter dated 29-09-2009 informed the petitioner that,
caste claim of respondent No.5 is pending with the
Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, the petitioner lodged
a complaint before the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on
21-08-2009 and brought to their notice that, the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
6
selection of respondent No. 5 is not just and proper
and since the petitioner is second in the merit list
the petitioner be granted the Retail Outlet Dealership
at Mohol, Dist. Solapur. In spite of the said
complaint/application the respondents have taken any
action. Hence this Writ Petition.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
advertisement in question specifically mentions that
the Retail Outlet Dealership at Mohol, Dist. Solapur
was to be allotted to the persons belonging to
Scheduled Tribe category and such candidate to produce
the caste validity certificate at the time of
interview, otherwise the said application of the
candidate would be rejected. It was also mentioned in
the said advertisement that, all necessary documents
were to be annexed to the said application and once
the application was submitted, the applicants would
not be given permission to add, delete or modify
contents therein. In the said advertisement it was
also specifically mentioned that, no additional
documents would be accepted or considered after the
last date of submission of the application. It was
also mentioned that, after conducting interviews, the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
7
merit list would be published and in case the
aggrieved person can lodge the complaint within 30
days to the respondents authorities. It is further
submitted that, in pursuance to the advertisement
dated 21-04-2009, the petitioner has applied to the
respondent authorities annexing all necessary
documents including the caste validity certificate of
the petitioner, and accordingly, on 29-07-2009 the
petitioner attended
ig the interview. In spite of
fulfilling all conditions mentioned in the
advertisement, respondent No. 5 was selected for
allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership, though she is
not eligible. According to the petitioner,
respondent No. 5 did not possess caste validity
certificate at the time of interview, and therefore,
she should not have been considered for selection for
the Retail Outlet Dealership at Mohol, Dist. Solapur.
A communication by the authorities that the caste
claim of respondent No. 5 is pending with the Caste
Scrutiny Committee for validation, itself would
demonstrate that, the respondent No. 5 was not in
possession of original caste validity certificate at
the time of interview. It is further submitted that,
the advertisement dated 21-04-2009 was issued in Daily
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
8
‘Lokmat’ published in the State of Maharashtra. The
petitioner is resident of Aurangabad and respondent
No. 5 is resident of Osmanabad. The respondent Nos. 1
to 4 carried out their activities in Marathwada, and
therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain
this Writ Petition. Therefore, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that, this Writ Petition may
be allowed.
6.
Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 invited
our attention to the reply affidavit and also
additional affidavit filed on behalf of the said
respondents. According to respondent Nos. 2 to 4,
there is condition mentioned in the advertisement that
the person holding the caste certificate issued by
the competent authorities is entitle to fill in the
application and to appear for interview.
7. Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits
that, before the date of interview, upon requests made
by some of the applicants the management has taken a
decision that all eligible candidates be called for
interview and be allowed to participate in the
interview irrespective of availability of caste
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
9
validity certificate. The reason for such decision was
that the applications for certificates of the
candidates were pending before competent authority for
verification and the said verification would take a
long time. It is further submitted that, the said
selection of the candidates is purely provisional and
subject to the production of caste validity
certificate. It is further submitted that, the Indian
Oil Corporation has already initiated necessary steps,
in order to investigate the complaint of the
petitioner dated 24-08-2009 and an officer has been
nominated to investigate the said complaint. It is
further submitted that, the petitioner has placed at
serial No. 2 in the merit list published on
20-08-2009. Respondent No. 5 is at serial No. 1 in the
merit list. However, she has not been issued with the
letter of intent, as the matter is under
investigation. It is further submitted that, the
present Writ Petition is premature, as no letter of
intent is issued to any candidates and the issuance of
letter of intent is subject to the production of caste
validity certificate. Therefore, the Writ Petition
deserves to be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
10
On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, relying
on additional affidavit in reply, it is also submitted
that, no injustice is caused to the petitioner. In
view of the advertisement, no injustice is caused, as
all eligible candidates were entitled to submit the
application with the Caste Certificate, issued by the
competent authority, as per Part-I. However, as per
the advertisement the Caste validity certificate is
required to be produced at the time of interview. The
learned counsel further invited our attention to para
No. 7 of the additional affidavit in reply to contend
that the matter was reviewed by Maharashtra State
Office, Retail Office, Retail Sales Manager and
Executive Director, in consultation with Head Office,
and therefore, the action was advised to the effect
that, in case of Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe
locations, all eligible candidates will be interviewed
whether they have the caste validity certificate or
not. However, letter of intent would be issued to the
selected candidates, only on production of the caste
validity certificate all other procedures to be
followed as per the guidelines. Therefore, learned
counsel would submit that, it is only after interviews
are held, merit panel is prepared of three eligible
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
11
candidates in the order of merit, and thereafter, the
field investigation report is called for in respect of
the first candidate, who is first in merit list, and
if everything is proper and according to guidelines,
then the letter of intent is issued. It is further
submitted that, issuance of letter of intent is
subject to the production of the caste validity
certificate. Therefore, learned counsel would submit
that, no injustice is caused to any of the eligible
candidates and all the candidates, who were eligible
from Scheduled Caste /Schedule Tribe category were
called for interview. Therefore, learned counsel
would submit that, Writ Petition is devoid of any
merits and same deserves to be dismissed.
8. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5
raised preliminary objection for entertaining Writ
Petition on the ground that, the place where Retail
Outlet Dealership is allotted, is not within the
jurisdiction of this Bench and the interviews are held
at Pune, and therefore, the present petition ought to
have been filed and heard at Principle Bench. It is
further submitted that, the respondent No. 5 stood
first in merit list, and therefore, she was entitled
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
12
to get Retail Outlet Dealership at Mohol, Dist.
Solapur. It is further submitted that, field survey
report taken by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 also
supports the claim of the respondent No. 5. It is
further submitted that, under Rules, there is no
provision for submitting validation certificate at the
time of interview. It is further submitted that, if
the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of respondent
Nos. 2 to 4,
ig in that event, the petitioner has
alternative remedy by way of complaint before Indian
Oil Corporation at the address of the customer service
cell displayed at the nearest retail outlet of Indian
Oil Corporation. Complaints can also be lodged on the
website of Indian Oil Corporation, as a complaints
against dealer’s selection. Therefore, learned
counsel would submit that, the writ Petition is devoid
of merits and same deserves to be dismissed.
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing
for the respective parties at length. Firstly, We
shall deal with the preliminary objection raised by
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5
that, this bench has no jurisdiction to entertain the
Writ Petition in view of the fact that the allotment
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
13
of Retail Outlet dealership is at Mohol, Dist.
Solapur, which comes under the jurisdiction of
Principal Bench and interviews were held at Pune, and
therefore, Writ Petition should have been filed and
heard at Principal bench. This plea merely deserves to
be stated to be rejected, in view of the fact that,
the advertisement was issued even at Aurangabad in
Daily ‘Lokmat’. Besides, the petitioner being
ordinary residentig of Aurangabad, had submitted his
application from Aurangabad, which is within the
jurisdiction of this Bench.
10. Reverting to the merits, we would like to
refer to the undisputed facts involved in the present
case. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., has issued
brochure for selection of petrol/diesel retail outlet
dealers on 01-07-2009. Under clause 4.3 (B) (i)
reservation is provided for Scheduled Castes/
Scheduled Tribes which care recognized under the
Constitution of India. The said clause 4.3.(B) (i)
reads thus :-
“(i) Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST)
Those recognized as Scheduled Cast/Scheduled
Tribes (SC/ST) under the Constitution of::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
14India, issued by a competent authority as
under :
District Magistrate/ Additional District
Magistrate/Collector/Deputy Commissioner/
Addl. Deputy Commissioner/ Deputy
Collector/1st Class Stipendiary
Magistrate/City Magistrate (Not below the
rank of 1st Class Stipendiary Magistrate/Sub
Divisional Magistrate /Taluka Magistrate/Executive Magistrate/Extra Assistant
Commissioner.
Magistrate/Additional
Chief
Chief
Presidency
Presidency
Magistrate/ Presidency Magistrate. RevenueOfficer not below the rank of Tahsildar.
Sub Divisional Officer of the area where the
candidate and/or his family normally residesAdministrator/ Secretary to Administrator/
Development Officer (Lakshadweep) any other
competent authority notified by the
Government of India.
In clause 10 of the said brochure there is a
reference of application form to be filed before the
respondents for dealership. The clause 10 (a) reads
thus :-
” (a) The application can be submitted
on plain paper in the prescribed format as
mentioned.
(b)————————
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
15
(c)—————————-
(d)—————————
(e)—————————–
(f)——————————
(g) No addition/deletion
/alteration will be permitted in the
application once it is submitted.
(h) No additional documents whatsoever
will be accepted or considered after the cut
off date of the application.
(i) Application received after the cut
off date for any reason including postal
delay, and those without accompanying valid
documents like Affidavits, Certificates etc.,
application fee or incomplete in any respect
will not be considered and no correspondence
will be entertained by IOC in such cases
whatsoever.
(j) The applications received are
scrutinized after the cut off date for
receiving the applications as given in the
advertisement. In case of applications
rejected at the time of scrutiny, the
concerned applicant will be advised the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
16
reasons for rejection in writing and such
applicants will not be called for interview.”
On perusal of clause (g) of the application
form it shows that, no addition, deletion, or
alteration will be permitted once it is submitted. It
is further provided in clause 10(h) that, no
additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or
considered after the cut off date of the
application. The clause 13 of the brochure provides
for interviews. The clause 13 of the brochure is reads
thus :-
” The candidates should produce originals of
the documents submitted by them with the
application, at the time of interview failing
which the applicants will be renderedineligible. The candidates will also have to
submit a fresh affidavit as per Annexure-A or
Annexure-A 1 as applicable prior to the date
of interview, failing which the candidatewill be considered as ineligible for
dealership. A Committee will be evaluate the
candidates and select them based on the marks
obtained on various parameters based on the
documents submitted with the application form
and their performance in the interview.”
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
17
11. Plain reading of clause 13 would make it
clear that, the candidates are required to produce
originals of the documents submitted by them with the
application, at the time of interview, failing which
the applicant will be rendered ineligible.
At this juncture it would be relevant to
refer to the advertisement i.e. notice for appointment
of Retail Outlet
ig Dealers issued by Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. Clause No.2 of the said
advertisement is in respect of eligibility criteria.
In the present case, the petitioner and respondent No.
5 have applied in pursuance to the said advertisement.
The clause 2(b) of the said advertisement reads
thus :-
“Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Category
(SC/ST):- Persons belonging to SC/ST
category should submit a caste certificate
of ‘Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe’category issued by the competent authority.
(i)—————————————
The applicant(s) belonging to SC/ST category
should ensure that the original caste
validity certificate granted by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee as per Gazette
Notification issued by the Govt. of::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
18Maharashtra is produced at the time of
interview, failing which their
candidature/application shall be rejected.”
12. It is not in dispute that, when the
respondent No. 5 was interviewed she was not holding
the caste validity certificate in her favour and the
petitioner herein had submitted original caste
validity certificate at the time of interview. The
requirement, as stated in the advertisement, states in
unambiguous terms that, at the time of interview the
candidate should produce the original documents, of
which copies are submitted along with application
form. It would be relevant to refer to para No.2 of
the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to
4. It is admitted in para No. 2 that, it is true that,
the caste validity certificate is necessary at the
time of interview. Para No. 3 of the additional
affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4
filed by Deputy Manager, (Retail Sales), Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., Pune reads thus :-
” I further say that, Second part of the
said Advertisement for Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes category says that,
Applicants belonging to Scheduled::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
19Castes /Scheduled Tribes Category, should
ensure that the original Caste Validity
Certificate, granted by the Caste ScrutinyCommittee, as per the Gazette Notification,
issued by the Government of Maharashtra is
produced at the time of interview. Failingwhich, their candidature / applications shall
be rejected.”
Therefore, on undisputed facts, it is crystal
clear that, at the time of interview of the petitioner
and respondent No. 5, the petitioner had produced
original caste validity certificate before the
interview committee and respondent No. 5 did not
produce the same. The contention raised by the
respondent No.5 that there is no Rule to submit caste
validation certificate at the time of interview is
required to be rejected in the light of clause 2(b)
mentioned in the advertisement.
It is also relevant to mention that, in
clause 10 of the brochure i.e. Application form, it is
provided that no addition, deletion, alteration will
be permitted in the application once it is submitted
and no additional documents whatsoever will be
accepted or considered after the cut off date of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
20
application. Therefore, it follows that no addition,
deletion, alteration was permissible in the
application once it was submitted.
12. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submitted that in the interest
of candidates from Scheduled Castes / Scheduled
Tribes, the respondents have decided to take
interviews of the candidates irrespective of the facts
that the original caste validity certificate was not
available with them at the time of interview, we
cannot accept this submission of the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, in view of
the specific clauses in the brochure as well as
advertisement prescribing the eligibility criteria for
the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes /
Scheduled Tribes category.
13. Taking overall view of the matter and taking
into consideration undisputed position that the
condition enumerated in the advertisement clearly
mentions that the candidate should submit original
certificates including the caste validity certificate
at the time of interview, and even call letters issued
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
21
also mentions that the candidate should produced all
original certificates at the time of interview, it is
not open for the respondents to contend that it was
not necessary to produce original caste validation
certificate at the time of interview.
15 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has placed reliance on the reported judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of M/s. Monarch Infrastructure
(P) Ltd. V/s. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal
Corporation and others [AIR 2000 SC 2272]. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No.12 of the said
judgment has held thus :-
“12. The High Court had taken the view
that if a term of the tender having been
deleted after the players entered intothe arena it is like changing the rules
of the game after it had began and,
therefore, if the Government or the
Municipal Corporation was free to alterthe conditions fresh process of tender
was the only alternative permissible.
Therefore, we find that the course
adopted by the High Court in the
circumstances is justified because by
reason of deletion of a particular
condition the wider net will be
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
22
permissible and a larger participation
or more attractive bids could be
offered.”
Yet in another reported judgment in case of
K. Manjushree Vs. State of A.P. (2008) 3 Supreme Court
Cases 512, in para No. 33 the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that :-
” The Resolution dated 30-11-2004 merely
adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The
previous procedure was not to have any
minimum marks for interview. Therefore,
extending the minimum marks prescribed for
written examination, to interviews, in the
selection process is impermissible. We may
clarify that prescription of minimum marks
for any interview is not illegal. We have no
doubt that the authority making rules
regulating the selection, can prescribe by
rules, the minimum marks both for written
examination and interviews, or prescribe
minimum marks for written examination but not
for interview, or may not prescribe any
minimum marks for either written examination
or interview. Where the rules do not
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
23prescribe any procedure, the Selection
Committee may also prescribe the minimum
marks as stated above. But if the Selection
Committee wants to prescribed minimum marks
for interview, it should do so before the
commencement of selection process, it cannot
either during the selection process or after
the selection process, add an additional
requirement that the candidates should also
secure minimum marks in the interview. What
we have found to be illegal, is changing the
criteria after completion of the selection
process, when the entire selection proceeded
on the basis that there will be no minimum
marks for the interview.” (Emphasis
supplied).
At this juncture, it would be relevant to
refer to reported judgment in case of Hemani Malhotra
V/s. High Court of Delhi [reported in (2008) 7 Supreme
Court Cases 11 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :-
” The authority making rules regulating
the selection can prescribe by rules the
minimum marks both for written examination
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
24and viva voce, but if minimum marks are not
prescribed for viva voce before commencement
of selection process or after the selection
process, the authority concerned cannot
either during the selection process or after
the selection process, add an additional
requirement/qualification that the candidate
should also secure minimum marks in the
interview. ig There is no good ground for
reconsideration of proposition of law laid
down in this regard in K. Manjusree Case
(2008) 3 SCC 512. Prescription of minimum
marks by the respondent High Court for viva
voce, after written test was over, was
illegal.” (Emphasis supplied).
Therefore, it follows from the authoritative
pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited
supra, that the authority cannot either during the
selection process or after the selection process alter
or add an additional requirement / qualification or
alter of any conditions already laid down for selection
process.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
25
16. In the instant case, it is admitted position
that, at the time of interview, the petitioner was
possessing caste validity certificate and respondent
No. 5 was not holding caste validity certificate. In
fact, as per the requirements, conditions mentioned in
the brochure, advertisement and call letter for
interview, as stated in foregoing paragraphs of this
judgment, it was incumbent to have caste validity
certificate at the time of interview itself. In that,
it is stated in those conditions that, the applicants
belonging to Scheduled Caste / Schedule Tribe should
ensure that the original caste validity certificate
granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to be produced
at the time of interview, failing which their
candidature or application shall be rejected.
Therefore, the respondent No. 5 at the time of
interview was not having caste validity certificate and
was not eligible to be considered for the Retail Outlet
Dealership at Mohol, Dist. Solapur. However, Respondent
No.5 was considered as the respondent Nos.2 to 4
decided to relax the condition of having caste validity
certificate at the time of interview, after the
applications were processed and completed in all
respects. In other words, the decision to relax the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
26
condition of producing caste validity certificate at
the time of interview which pertained to eligibility/
conditions prescribed in the advertisement and
brochure, was taken soon before the interview, and
during the selection process which cannot be
countenanced in the light of the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra. Needless to mention
that, many candidates similarly placed as the
Respondent No.5,
ig who did not have caste validity
certificates; could have participated in the process of
selection for Retail Outlet Dealership, if the
advertisement or the brochure were to clearly specify
that position. Only then the respondent Nos.2 to 4
could have allowed them to participate in interview in
absence of caste validity certificate. The
eligibility/condition of producing caste validity
certificate after the selection process had began has
obviously deprived opportunity to many other candidates
similarly placed as that of the Respondent No.5 who did
not apply because of the contrary eligibility condition
in the advertisement. Therefore, in our considered
opinion, it was not permissible for the respondent Nos.
2 to 4 to relax / waive the condition of producing
caste validity certificate at the time of interview of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
27
the candidates.
17. We are of the considered opinion that, on the
date of interview and actually when interview was held,
the petitioner was the only candidate eligible for
selection since he possessed the caste validity
certificate. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were
not right in placing the respondent No. 5 at serial No.
1 in the merit list. The petitioner is shown second in
the merit list and was the only candidate who
fulfilled all the eligibility criteria /conditions laid
down in brochure / advertisement. Therefore, the Retail
Outlet Dealership at Mohol, Dist. Solapur should have
been given to the petitioner.
18. Taking over all view of the matter and in the
light of discussion here-in-above, we are of the
considered opinion that, the petitioner is bound to
succeed in this petition. Hence, the petition is
allowed. Directions / order of the respondent Nos. 2 to
4 to allot the Retail Outlet Dealership in favour of
respondent No. 5 and showing him in merit list at
serial No. 1 is quashed and set aside. The respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 are directed to give Retail Outlet
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::
28
Dealership at Mohol Dist. Solapur to the petitioner.
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B) &
(C), which read thus :-
” (B) By appropriate Writ, order or
directions, the selection of the respondent
No. 5 for allotment of Retail Outlet
Dealership at Mohol, Dist. Solapur may be
quashed and set aside.
(C) By appropriate Writ, order or
directions, the respondent authorities may
be directed to allot the Retail Outlet
Dealership to the petitioner and for that
purpose issue necessary letters / orders in
that regard.”
Petition is allowed and disposed of on the
above terms. The Civil Application, if any stands
disposed of in view of the disposal of main Writ
Petition.
[ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]
SDM*
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:41:29 :::