ORDER
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. On August 20,1988, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited invited applications for allotment of retail outlet dealership at Subana in district Rohtak. The petitioner was one of the applicants. He was interviewed on December 11, 1990. Vide letter dated October 27, 1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-14 with the writ petition, the petitioner was informed that he had not been selected for the award of the dealership/distributorship. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The primary challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that it is violative of the instructions issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide letter dated March 31, 1993. According to the petitioner, the constitution of the Oil Selection Board had been changed by the Government in January, 1993. Thereafter, the instructions were issued vide circular dated March 31, 1993 wherein it was provided that in cases where merit panels were finalised by the previous Oil Selection Board but not communicated to the Oil Companies, the newly constituted Boards will release the merits panels to the Oil Companies for further action. The petitioner claims that he had been duly selected and in accordance with the terms of the circular his name should have been forwarded by the Board to the oil Company.
2. The Oil Company and the Board have been impleaded as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. A written statement has been filed on their behalf. It ha been inter alia averred that the interview for the outlet in dispute had been conducted by the previous Board comprising of Justice Nazir Ahmed (Retd.) Smt. Rashmi Shroff and Shri M.P. Eshwarappa on 15th September, 1990 at Hotel Karan, Kama Lake, Karnal. The third member of the Board, as per the record, did not participate in the interview. According to the comparative Statement of performance of candidates interviewed by the then Board the petitioner was placed at No. 1 Shri Rajesh Chikara at No. 2 and Shri Navneet Kumar at No. 3.” The names of three persons were sent for investigation. Though the investigation report had been received but the Board “had not finalised the merit panel during their continuation. After constitution of the Board in January, 1993, the Board initiated action in the present case keeping in view” the guidelines “contained in the Manual of Selection in the year 1993 had received a number of complaints against the eligibility of all the empanelled candidates. The said Board “after giving opportunity to the petitioner and other two candidates who have been placed at Nos. 2 and 3 came to the conclusion that it was a fit case in which the location (Subana) should be readvertised.” On this basis, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature and the decision to invite fresh applications for the award of dealership has been supported.
3. Shri Harbhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the decision of the respondents is contrary to the instructions issued by the Ministry on March 31, 1993. It has been further submitted that the action is violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner’s name was rejected inspite of the fact that he had been placed at No. 1 without the grant of any opportunity whatsoever. This claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Shri Salil Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. A perusal of the letter dated March 31, 1993, shows that the Government of India had decided that “all pending cases where earlier Oil Selection Boards could not finalise the selection before their termination, will be transferred to the respective State Level Boards for completing the selection process.” The manner of disposal was also laid down. It was inter alia provided that the “cases where merit panels were finalised by the previous Oil Selection Boards, but not communicated to the Oil Companies, the present Oil Selection Board will release the merit panels to the Oil Companies for further action, the number of such cases is reported to be 54.” All “the locations for which interviews were held but merit panels were not finalised by the previous OSBs will be readvertised for selection of dealers/distributors.” What is the position in the present case?
5. According to the averments in the written statement, the interview had been held on September 15, 1990. A comparative statement of performance of candidates was prepared. The comparative statement of performance of candidates was prepared. The petitioner was placed at No. 1. The names of first three persons were forwarded to the Corporation for field investigation report. The report had been received, but the Board had not finalised the merit panel. Simultaneously, certain complaints had also been received. A copy of the complaint, which had been received against the petitioner, has been produced as Annexure R.3. Various allegations challenging the correctness of the statement of facts made by the petitioner as also his eligibility had been made. The petitioner was heard in respect of these matters and finally the Board decided that fresh applications for the award of the dealership be invited. The sequence of events, as noticed above, does not show that the merit panel had been finalised by the Oil Selection Board prior to its dissolution in January, 1993. In such a situation, the ‘location’ had to be readvertised for selection of dealer. The action of the respondents was in complete conformity with the procedure laid down in the circular dated March 31, 1993. Accordingly, the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
6. It was then contended that the action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been categorically averred in paragraph 16 that the decision had been taken by the Board “after giving opportunity to the petitioner and other two candidates who had been placed at No. 2 and 3….” No replication has been filed. Consequently, the stand taken on behalf of the respondents remains uncontroverted. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that in fact no opportunity had been granted to the petitioner to controvert the allegations made in the complaint against him. Shri Salil Sagar contested this statement. He has produced a copy of letter dated April 29, 1993, which was sent to the petitioner by Registered Post by which the petitioner was asked to “meet the Board at Hotel Park, 15, Parliament Street, Connaught Place, New Delhi on 9th May, 1993….in connection with the above interview.” He was also asked to produce a residence certificate showing that he “had been living in the concerned District for a minimum period of five years immediately after preceding the date of application.” Thereafter, vide letter dated May 15, 1993, even the other two candidates were called upon to appear before the Board. In this situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain his position before the final decision was taken. In this view of the mater, the contention that the action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.
7. Even otherwise, the petitioner did not have any indefeasible right to be selected or allotted the dealership. Even if he had been placed at No. 1 in the panel, the facts given by him in the application had to be checked up. Consequently, the selection had not attained finality. If in such a situation, the authority took the view that fresh-applications should be invited, its action cannot be said to be arbitrary or unfair. After all, almost five years had elapsed since the issue of the advertisement. A number of other persons could have become eligible. The Board as well as the Corporation could have understandably taken by view that such persons as may have become eligible in the meantime should be given a chance to complete. On account of this reason, the action of the Board in deciding to invite the application afresh was not unjust or unfair.
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.