JUDGMENT
U.P. Singh, J.
1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration quashing the order whereby respondent No. 5 has been appointed as Salesman Dealer of Resist Oil Corporation in SKO/LDO at Manjhi in the district of Saran by respondents 1 to 4. Another prayer is to issue direction to respondents 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner in place of respondent No. 5.
2. In short, the dispute in this case centers round the issuance of an award of SKO/LDO dealership at Manjhi in the district of Saran. In January, 1987, an advertisement was made for appointment of Salesman who were to be awarded a SKO/LDO dealership at Manjhi. In the month of February, 1987, the petitioner applied for such appointment in proper form. In November, 1988, a letter for interview to be held at Jamshedpur was issued and the petitioner was asked to appear before the Oil Selection Board with all necessary documents. The petitioner alleges that he was orally informed that he had been appointed as a dealer since he was the only person fulfilling all the criteria laid down by the Petroleum Corporation and he was assured to get the letter of appointment within a month or two. Later, respondent No. 5 informed that he had been appointed as the dealer.
3. The sole contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the action of respondents 1 to 4 is discriminatory and the appointment of dealer on a criteria other than the one laid down in the advertisement is liable to be struck down on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and arbitrariness. As against that, the respondents contended that the petitioner had no fundamental right and or any legal right enforceable against the respondent corporation to claim appointment as a dealer. He can at best claim equality in treatment and consideration in the selection process vis-a-vis other applicants. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not been treated equally. He was afforded equal opportunity at the time of the interview and was duly considered for the subject dealership.
4. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Government of India Enterprises, is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business of refining, distribution and marketing of Petroleum products throughout India. For the purpose of retail sale of petroleum products, dealers are appointed all over India by the respondent Corporation inter alia, by executing dealership agreements with them pursuant to their selection by the Oil Selection Board.
5. The policy jointly formulated and uniformly implemented by the Oil Industry for selection of new dealers and commissioning of new dealerships, may briefly be described as follows:
A market survey is conducted to identify potential location suitable for commissioning new dealerships by the members of the Oil Industry viz., Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and the Indo Burma Petroleum Corporation Limited through their Field Officer? in each State of the Union of India and the Union Territories. Thereafter such locations as are found viable and potential are tabled and proposed and finalised at a meeting for recommendation to the Oil Industry Group at its Head Office, The Oil Industry Group at the Head Office level held meetings to scrutinise and finalise these proposals for commissioning new dealership for various products, i.e. petrol and/or diesel, kerosene and light diesel oil and liquefied petroleum gas. A market plan by each financial year and by each product or group of products is then finalised and stated on an All India basis for the Oil Industry. The locations so finalised are then allocated to either ‘others’ (open) category (including unemployed graduates and unemployed engineering Graduates) or reserve category under the social objective schemes such as SC/ST, physically Handicapped Freedom Fighters etc. according to predetermined norms, These locations are then shared out amongst the four Oil Companies on a fixed hundred point share out formula by draw of lots and are thus allotted to the concerned Oil Company for the commissioning of new dealership.
6. These locations are then advertised by the respective Oil Companies both in English and local Vernacular Newspapers, inviting applications in the prescribed form which are made available to intending applicants by the concerned Oil Company inviting the applications. Upon receipt of the applications within the prescribed time-limit, the same are scrutinised by the concerned Oil Company for determining the eligibility in terms of the advertisement and, thereafter, all eligible and ineligible applications are submitted to the concerned Oil Selection Board together with a listing for eligible and ineligible applications respectively. The Oil Selection Board once again reviews and scrutinises these applications and may, in its discretion consider on reasonable grounds any applicant as eligible which has been categorised by the Oil Company as ineligible or vice versa and act accordingly.
7. The Oil Selection Board (OSB) is an independent body constituted by the Oil Industry in consultation with the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in accordance with the policy guidelines and procedures jointly formulated and uniformly implemented by the Oil Industry member for centralising the selection of prospective dealers for commissioning new dealerships in various petroleum products. Each Oil Selection Board is headed by a retired High Court Judge, designated as its ‘Chairman” and is assisted by a retired Civil Servant, designated as ‘Member’ and is entrusted with the exclusive and independent charge of the responsibility of selection of candidates for prospective dealerships on behalf of the Oil Industry. There are four such Oil Selection Boards appointed, one each for North (N), East (E), West (W) and South (S) regions of the country with distinct Jurisdiction. The Selections made by the Oil Selection Boards are final and binding upon the Oil Companies at interest. Upon completion of the interview the Oil Selection Board prepares a panel consisting of not more than three names and communicates the panel listing the names of empanelled candidates in alphabetical order to the concerned Oil Company so as to keep the position in merit confidentially for carrying out an impartial field investigation report within a time framed by the concerned Oil Company through its officers and a report is promptly submitted to the said Board. The field investigation report is a very important process before final selection and appointment to dealership. Mere empanelment for the purpose of Field Investigation Report does not create or vest any right for appointment or selection for dealership as a candidate can well be rejected after conducting of the field investigation report. Upon receipt of the field investigation report the Oil Selection Board finally reviews and decides and submits its final recommendation in order of merit for the appointment of an intending candidate as a dealer of the concerned Oil Company and for issuing a letter of intent to the first empanelled candidate in order of merit for making suitable arrangement of land, finance and other requisites for commissioning the dealer-ship Upon the successful applicant’s complying with the same a letter of appointment is then issued and a regular dealership agreement is then executed by and between the dealer selected and the Oil Company incorporating the terms and conditions as also the rights and obligations of the parties.
8. The location Manjhi, district Saran, Bihar, was included in the Marketing Plan for 1985-86 of the Oil Industry for commissioning a new SKO/ LDO Dealership under ‘others (Open) category and was allotted to the share of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (respondent herein) and, accordingly, advertisements inviting applications on prescribed application forms were released and published on 16-1-1987 in the ‘Times of India (English) and “the Navbharat times” (Hindi) Daily Newspapers, by the respondent Corporation. Out of 37 completed applications received, 4 were found ineligible while 33 were found eligible. All the eligible/ineligible applications were forwarded by the respondent Corporation to Oil Selection Board (E) on 21-1-1987 under two separate listings. OSB (E) in turn issued call letters and held the interview on 28-11-1988 at Hotel Hataraj, Jamshedpur. The Oil Selection Board (East) was headed by Justice S.J. Deshpande (Retd) as Chairman and was assisted by Shri K.C. Sodhia as its member. Thirty candidates appeared for the inter view. After the interview, OSB (E) empanelled two candidates in alphabetical order of their first names for the purpose of conducting Field Investigations and communicated the same to the Corporation, first respondent herein, vide their letter dated 29-11-1988 wherein the name of the petitioner was listed at serial No. 1 and that of the respondent No. 5 at serial No. 2.
As stated above, these names were listed in the alphabetical order of their first names and were not listed in order of merit. A copy of the OSB (E)’s letter dated 29-11-1988 has been annexed marked A to the counter-affidavit. Field Investigation Reports FIRs were conducted by the Sales Officer of respondent Corporation and forwarded to OSB (E) on 9-1-1989. After considering the said (FIRs) the OSB (E) submitted its final recommendations in order of merit to the respondent Corporation by its letter dated 30-1-1989/2-2-1989. In the final panel in order of merit, the name of the respondent No. 5 was listed at serial No. 1 (first rank) and that of the petitioner at serial No. 2 (second rank). Accordingly, a letter of intent offering impugned dealership was issued to the first empanelled candidate (respondent No. 5) by the respondent Corporation’s letter dated 2-3-1989 on certain terms and conditions as enumerated in the said letter for making suitable arrangements for land, finance and other requisites for commissioning the subject dealership.
9. Considering the averments made in the petition, affidavits and counter affidavits and reply thereto and after giving my anxious consideration to all the contentions raised by the parties, I ho d that the petitioner has neither any fundamental right nor any legal right enforceable against the respondent Corporation, There has been no discrimination or arbitrariness in consideration of the applications and selection for the subject dealership. The subject dealership has not been awarded contrary to the criteria laid down in the advertisement and cannot be struck down on the ground of promissory estoppels and arbitrariness. There is no violation of any principles of natural justice or the Directive principles of the State Policy. Merely because the petitioner fulfilled all the criteria laid down for consideration of his candidature he cannot claim dealership as a matter of right. A candidate meeting the criteria only become eligible to be considered for selection for award of the dealership. The petitioner was found eligible for consideration and was duly considered for selection along with others. Being unemployed graduate, the petitioner also cannot claim preference to be given to him over respondent No. 5 in the matter of appointment as contended by him. The question of giving preference if any, would arise only in the event of ‘other things being equal as specified in Rule 2(g) of the advertisement (Annexurc-1). The placement of petitioner’s name at serial No. 1 in the panel prepared by OSB (E) for the purpose of conducting FIRs was on the basis of the alphabetical order of his first name and not on the basis of merit or verification or educational qualifications. It has been firmly stated in the counter-affidavit that this is the usual practice in order to maintain secrecy before final panel is submitted and it does not create any right in the petitioner to claim dealership. In the final panel, in order of merit, the petitioner’s name was listed at serial No. 2. In Rule (g) of the advertisement, it is clearly stipulated that other things being equal preference would be given to unemployed graduates. Before an applicant could claim preferential treatment under the said clause, it necessarily pre-supposes the said candidate being at par in all other respects as to his suitability and capability as distinct from his fulfillment of the conditions of eligibility to come within the zone of consideration. The petitioner was only empanelled in alphabetical order of his first name for the purpose of conducting a field investigation report before he could be considered for appointment for dealership. Listing of an applicant in alphabetical order for the purpose of conducting of a field investigation report does net create any right for appointment in the petitioner but it is only a part of process of selection for consideration for appointment to dealership and an applicant could well be rejected as unsuitable after conducting the field investigation report. Based in individual merit and comparative performance at the time of the interview and subsequent verification on FIRs in the judgment of OSB (E) respondent No. 5 was found and assessed to be more suitable as compared to the petitioner for appointment as a dealer of the respondent Corporation and, therefore, respondent No. 5 was listed at serial No. 1 in the final panel in order of merit. Pursuant to the selection of respondent No. 5 as aforesaid, a letter of intent was issued in his favor.
10. In this view, the relief as asked for in this writ application cannot be granted to the petitioner and, therefore, this application is dismissed but there shall, however, be no order as to costs.