ORDER
1. This order would dispose of CWP Nos. 10654 and 16691, both of 1994, as they raise common questions of law.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition first above-mentioned are that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPC, for short) respondent (No. 2 invited applications for Dealership of Liquified Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) for Yamuna Nagar for the defence category of June 20, 1993. The petitioner fulfilled the conditions of eligiblity and he applied in time. He attended interview on February 17, 1994. The Chairman and two Members of the Oil Selection Board awarded marks to the petitioner as also the other candidates interviewed for Dealership of the said location in their individual marking sheet. The Oil Selection Boards in seven States including Haryana were dissolved by order dated March 2, 1994, of the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India. The Oil Selection Board for Haryana was reconstituted on March 16, 1994. The reconstituted Board again asked the petitioner to appear for interview on August 10, 1994. The case of the petitioner is that the recommendations by the Oil Selection Board on the basis of interviews held on or about February 17, 1994, were to be given effect in terms of the decision Annexure P7 dated March 31, 1993, and asking the petitioner to appear again in the interview so as to scrap the earlier selectioh was abritrary and illegal. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a writ of mandamus directing the Oil Selection Board to declare the result of the interviews held on Feb. 17, 1994, and to grant the dealership in question for Yamunanagar according to that result.
3. A detailed writtten statment has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 by Shri Justice Harbans Lal (retired), Chairman of the Oil Selection Board, respondent No. 3. It has been stated that individual marking was done by the Members and the Chairman of the Oil Selection Board on the basis of the interviews held on Feb. 17, 1994. On that day, however, the comparative statement and the merit penel were not prepared until March 2, 1994, as no meeting of the Oil Selection Board took place in between Feb. 17, 1993, and March, 2, 1994. The comparative statement Annexure R5 was prepared on March 2, 1994, and it was signed by all the three members including the Chairman at a joint sitting of the Members of the Board and thereafter forwarded to Mr. M.M. Khan, State level Cordinator-cum-Non Member Secretary of the Oil Selection Board in a sealed coyer. The merit panel along with the covering letter dated March 2, 1994, in a sealed cover was received by Mr. Sunil Jain, Personal Assistant to Mr. M.N. Khan on March 2, 1994. at 4.47 p.m. vide receipt Annexure R-3. The Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide Memo dated April 12, 1994, clarified that Merit panels received after March 1, 1994, should be ignored and if interviews were conducted and panels not received by the Oil Companies up to March, I, 1994, fresh interviews in all such cases should be conducted copy of the Memo dated April 12, 1994, is Annexure R-2 It was in pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the Ministry that fresh interviews were held with regard to the location in question.
4. CW.P No. 16691 of 1994 has been filed by Som Parkash Verma. He also applied for same Dealership at Yamunanagar. He appeard in the interview held on Feb. 17, 1904 as well as on August 10, 1994, after the reconstitution of the Oil Selection Board. His case is that in accordance with the decision of the Ministry of Petroleum, the recommen-dation of the Oil Selection Board had not been received by the HPC before the cut off date. The recommendations as a result of interviews held on Feb. 17, 1994, therefore, lapsed and result of selection based on interviews held on August 10, 1994, was to be
declared and further action taken for the grant of Dealership in accordance with that result. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to the respondents to declare the result of interviews held on August 10, 1994, with a view to taking further action for the grant of Dealership in question.
5. The contentions of Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, may be summarised as under:–
(i) Interviews were held on Feb. 17, 1994. The Chairman and the Members had evaluated the various candidates interviewed and had incorporated their assessment in the prescribed pro forma on the very day. The work of compilation was a mere ministerial act and the same could not possibly affect the selection. For all practical purposes, therefore, the material date was Feb. 17, 1994, which was long before the cut off date, namely, March 1, 1994.
(ii) The policy decision which was really applicable in this case was Annexure P7 dated March 31, 1993, according to which the merit panels finalised by the previous OSBs but not communicated to the Oil Companies, for further action.
(iii) No decision contrary to the aforesaid decision Annexure P7 could be taken, so as to take away the rights which had accrued in favour of the persons who were selected on the basis of the interview held on Feb. 17, 1994.
(iv) The cut off date, namely March 1, 1994,
had been arbitrarily fixed and “there was no
nexus between the said date and the overall
object of selecting the most suitable candi
date.
(v) The petitioner had not been given any
opportunity of being heard before scrapping
the selection made on the basis of interivews
held on Feb. 17, 1994.
6. The contentions of Mr. S.S. Nijjar, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for Som Parkash Verma, writ petitioner in CWP No. 16691 of 1994, on the one hand, and Mr. Anil Malhotra, learned counsel for respon-
dents 2 to 4 in this writ petition, on the other hand, may be summarised as under:–
(i) Marking was done individually on Feb.
17, 1994. The categorical stand of the Oil
Selection Board, which had not been dis
puted, was that no meeting of the Board took
place after, Feb. 17, 1994, unlill March 2,
1994. It was only in that meeting that the
merit panel was preparepd under the Joint
signatures of the Members and the Chairman.
The work of compiling and preparation of the
Merit panel could not be described as
ministrial. In any case, admittedly the merit
panel was delivered in the office of the State
Level Co-ordinator-cum-Non-Member Secre
tary only on the evening of March 2, 1994,
which was after the cut off date.
(ii) The policy decision Annexure P7 governed cases which were in the pipeline at the time of the dissolution of the earlier Oil Selection Boards. It was not a general policy decision governing all such cases for future The decision which governed the present case was Annexure R2 April 12, 1994, and the panels having not been received before the cut off date, namely, March 1, 1994, in the instant case, the merit panel based on the interviews held on Feb. 17, 1994 was not valid and could not be given effect.
(iii) The petitioner had not acquired any indefeasible right on the basis of the interview held on Feb. 17, 1994.
(iv) There was a clear nexus between the cut off date and finalisation of the merit panels, in that the Oil Selection Board in question was dissolved on March 2, 1994, implying that recommendations made by the Oil Selection Boards prior to their dissolution, which had been received in the office of the Oil Company concerned up to the preceding day i.e. March 1, 1994, would be acted upon and the other recommendations received thereafter would not be acted upon. This was clearly to exclude cases where there could be possibility of any Irregularity in preparing the panel even after the dissolution of the Board.
(v) Unless a right had accrued in favour of the petitioner, there was no question of a right of being heard.
7. We have given our earnest consideration lo the respective contentions.
8. The fate of these writ petitions turns on the question whether the decision Annex-ure P7 dated March 31, 1993, or the one contained in Annexure R2 dated April 12, 1944, governs the present case. We have no doubt that the relevant decision for purposes of the present case is Annexure R2 dated April 12, 1994. We may state our reasons for reaching the above conclusion.
9. In the heading the subject of Annex-life P7 is stated in these words:–
“Subject: Oil Selection Boards for Selection of dealers/distributors for Petroleum products– disposal of cases pending with
previous OSBs.”
Reference to previous OSBs admittedly refers to earlier dissolution of the Oil Selection Boards and hot to dissolution of the Oil Selection Boards on March 2, 1994. The relevant part of the policy decision is contained in para 1, sub-para(i) of Annexure P7 in the following words:–
“(i) Cases where merit panels were finalised by the previous OSBs, but not communicated to the Oil Companies, the present OSBs will release the merit Panels to the Oil Companies for further action. The number of such cases is reported to be 54.”
The number of cases falling in this category was reported to be 54, This clinches the whole matter and the policy could not possibly apply to future dissolutions and it was intended to apply and was expressly limited to those 54 cases in which merit panels had been reportedly finalised by the previous OSBs but they had not communicated the same to the Oil Companies. In regard to such merit panels the decision taken was that the reconstituted OSBs will release the merit panels to the Oil Companies for further action. Memo. Annexure R2 dated April 12, 1994, on the
other hand, reads as under:
“Subject:– Selection of dealers/distributors for petroleum products-disposal of cases pending with previous OSBs.
In pursuance to this Ministry’s OMs. all bearing No., P. 19011/2/94-10C dated 2-3-1994, seven Oil Selection Boards namely those for UP, Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Maharashtra, Kerala and Karnataka were terminated by the Government w.e.f. 2-3-1994.
Government’s guidance has been sought with regard to the action and procedure to be adopted in respect of merit panels recommended by the erstwhile OSBs and cases pending before them. The Government has considered the issue and it is hereby advised that panels received by the Oil Companies, up to 1-3-1994 only may be considered and LOIs issued in all such cases. Panels received after I-3-1994 should be ignored. If interviews were conducted and panels not received by Oil Companies up to 1 -3-1994, fresh interviews in all such cases will be conducted. Details of such cases should be sent to Government within 10 days.”
10. A bare perusal of the above decision leaves no room for doubt that it was made applicable to the merit panels prepared by the Oil Selection Boards including that of Haryana and only those merit panels had to be given effect to which had been received by the Oil Companies concerned up to March 1, 1994. Panels received after March I, 1994, were to be ignored. We, therefore, held that the Policy decision governing the present case is the one dated April 12, 1994, Annexure R2.
11. We are clearly of the view that the petitioner has not acquired any indefeasible right on the basis of the interview held on February 17, 1994. We further find that the cut off date has a clear nexus, in that it is directly connected with the dissolution of the Oil Selection Boards on March 2, 1994, and the object underlying the Policy decision is to prevent cases where a theoritical possibility of a dissolved Board making a recommenda-tion after the dissolution could not be safely ruled out, As no right had accrued in favour of the petitioner, there was no question of giving him an opportunity of being heard. The decision has been taken by the Ministry at the appropriate level and it is decision
governing all cases. In other words, it is not a case of a decision taken in respect of particular individual or some individuals.
12. For the foregoing reasons, we find no
merit in CWP No. 10654 of 1994, which is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1500/-CWP No. 16691 is however, allowed and it is directed that further action on the basis of the recommendations of the interview held on August, 10, 1994, shall be taken without any further delay.
13. Petition dismissed.