{"id":213602,"date":"2010-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-08T19:56:36","modified_gmt":"2016-03-08T14:26:36","slug":"ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ashok Kumar Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation … on 25 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Ashok Kumar Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation … on 25 January, 2010<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\n                                                                   Reserved\n\nWrit Petition No. 7839 (MB) of 2007\nAshok Kumar Singh\nVs.\nHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited\nand others; and\n\nWrit Petition No. 8875 (MB) of 2008\nAhsan Mohammad Ali\nVs.\nHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited\nand others\n\n\nHon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.\n<\/pre>\n
Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.\n<\/p>\n
        These are two writ petitions, which raise a common challenge to the
\naward of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) distributorship at Puredalai
\nDevelopment Block, District Barabanki, which has been awarded to Manoj
\nKumar Singh, the private respondent. The writ petitions are, therefore,
\nbeing decided by a common order.\n<\/p>\n
        Writ Petition No. 7839 (MB) of 2007 filed by Ashok Kumar Singh
\nis the leading writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as
\nthe Corporation) published an advertisement dated 8.2.04, advertising
\nvarious locations including the present location for appointment of LPG
\ndistributors.\n<\/p>\n
        The petitioner alongwith Manoj Kumar Singh and Ahsan
\nMohammad Ali, the petitioner of the other writ petition and certain other
\npersons, applied for the distributorship of LPG. The last date for submission
\nof forms and requisite documents was 9.3.04. The interview was held on
\n17.9.07 and the select list was published on 17.9.07 itself, wherein the
\npetitioner Ashok Kumar Singh was shown to have been awarded 30.67
\nmarks. Out of the four candidates, only two could secure more than
\nminimum eligibility marks, namely, Manoj Kumar Singh and Ahsan
\nMohammad Ali and found their places respectively at serial no. 1 and 2 of
\nthe merit list.\n<\/p>\n
        The petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh, being aggrieved by the
\naforesaid award of marks, made representations to the Corporation on
\n25.9.07 and also on 28.9.07. In pursuance of the directions issued by this
\n                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
Court vide its order dated 12.10.07, the Corporation was required to decide
\nthe representations aforesaid, which were decided on 4.1.08.\n<\/p>\n
        On reconsideration of the matter, as per the grievance raised by the
\npetitioner, the Corporation found that the marks, which were awarded to
\nAshok Kumar Singh deserved an increase of 15 marks and thus, he has been
\nawarded 45.67 marks in place of 30.67 marks originally allotted. But the
\nCorporation did not find any illegality or irregularity in the award of marks
\nto Manoj Kumar Singh, who had secured 53.24 marks and was empanelled
\nas the first candidate. The result of such scrutiny thus, did not effect the
\nselection of Manoj Kumar Singh, who was previously also at serial no. 1 of
\nthe merit list.\n<\/p>\n
        However, Ahsan Mohammad Ali, who was at serial no. 2, was
\npushed down to serial no. 3 as Ashok Kumar Singh secured his place at
\nserial no. 2. Ahsan Mohammad Ali has filed the writ petition challenging
\nthe said change of marks and also asserting that since Manoj Kumar Singh
\nwas not possessed of the land, as required under the advertisement,
\ntherefore, his candidature deserves to be rejected and as a consequence of
\nsuch rejection, he should be placed at serial no. 2 and the distributorship be
\noffered to him and not to Ashok Kumar Singh, who again has not been
\nawarded marks correctly.\n<\/p>\n
        The petitioner challenged the candidature of Manoj Kumar Singh,
\nprivate respondent, mainly on the following two grounds: (i) on the last date
\nof submission of application forms i.e. 9.3.04, Manoj Kumar Singh was less
\nthan 21 years of age and, therefore, his candidature could not have been
\nconsidered; and (ii) under the caption ‘capability to provide infrastructure’,
\nmarks were wrongly awarded to him, namely, 10 marks, whereas he should
\nhave been awarded ‘0’, since he was not having any land on the date of
\napplication, which could fall in the category of either leased land or the land
\nwhich could have been arranged by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        This plea is based on the fact that the land which was shown by the
\npetitioner that he can arrange, was transferred in the meantime and,
\ntherefore, he was not entitled to any marks under the said head.\n<\/p>\n
        In regard to the plea that the private respondent Manoj Kumar Singh
\nwas under-age on the date of application, suffice would be to mention that
\nthe plea appears to have been raised on some misconceived notion, as the
\ndate of birth of the private respondent, as recorded in the High School
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
Certificate of U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education is
\n8.1.82. Alongwith the form, the aforesaid certificate was also filed and the
\nsame date of birth was mentioned in the application form. Since the last date
\nof submission of application form was 9.3.04, therefore, it cannot be said
\nthat he was less than 21 years of age.\n<\/p>\n
        The plea, therefore, stands to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        The next argument that marks were wrongly awarded to private
\nrespondent under the head of ‘capability to provide infrastructure’, it is the
\nCorporation’s specific stand that he having filled in the column that he ‘can
\narrange’ the land, he has been awarded only ten marks, as per the criteria
\nand the norms. Therefore, it cannot be said that any incorrect marking has
\nbeen done to favour him. The minimum requirement of the land, according
\nto the brochure issued by the Corporation was as under:\n<\/p>\n
        Clause 8.1 – Minimum land for Godown – 27 m x 26.15 m
\n        Clause 8.2 – Minimum land for Showroom – 3 m x 4.5 m<\/p>\n
        Clause 14.1 of the brochure says that the allocation of marks and
\nvarious parameters based on documents will be carried out, as per the
\ninformation given in the application. Under the criteria ‘capability to
\nprovide infrastructure and facilities (as on the date of application), 25 marks
\nwere to be allotted, if the applicant owns having clear title\/registered sale
\ndeed of the suitable land\/godown. Eighteen marks were to be awarded if
\nthere was a ‘firm offer’ for example, having agreement to purchase\/lease of
\nsuitable land\/godown and only ten marks were to be awarded, if the
\napplicant describes it as ‘can arrange’ the land.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Likewise for the showroom also, if the applicant owns having clear
\ntitle\/registered sale deed of the suitable land\/shop for showroom, then ten
\nmarks; seven marks for firm offer, for example, having agreement to
\npurchase suitable land\/shop for showroom and only five marks were to be
\nawarded, if he ‘can arrange’ land\/shop for showroom.\n<\/p>\n
        Since the rest of the eligibility criteria for award of marks are not in
\ndispute, therefore, the same are not being reproduced.\n<\/p>\n
        The private respondent undisputedly and as is also evident from the
\nrecord, has given his option under the aforesaid criteria under the sub head
\n‘can arrange’. While doing so, he also filed an agreement on notary affidavit
\n                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
dated 3.3.04 executed by one Chandra Pal Singh, Chhedi Singh and Tej
\nBahadur Singh, saying that the aforesaid persons have agreed to sell\/lease
\nthe plot nos. 577\/Ka and 588 situated in Puredalai, District Barabanki. He
\nalso filed an affidavit dated 5.3.04 alongwith application form, stating that
\nhis father is ready to provide land to him for godown and showroom. The
\ndimensions of the land required for godown and the showroom have already
\nbeen stated earlier.\n<\/p>\n
        It is the further case of the private respondent that after the death of
\nChhedi Singh and Tej Bahadur Singh, who had submitted the affidavit dated
\n3.3.04 for providing the land of plot no. 577\/Ka, their successor Chandra
\nPal Singh executed a sale deed dated 25.9.07, by virtue of which they have
\ntransferred their share i.e. 7\/9th part of plot no. 577\/Ka in favour of private
\nrespondent. Again on 1.10.07, the successors of Chhedi Singh, namely,
\nAmar Singh alias Gaddana Siongh and Sukhdeo Singh executed a sale deed,
\nunder which 2\/9th share of plot no. 577\/Ka was transferred in favour of
\nprivate respondent and as such, the whole plot no. 577\/Ka, area 0.110
\nhectare has been transferred in favour of the private respondent, by virtue of
\nthe aforesaid two sale deeds. The name of private respondent, Manoj Kumar
\nSingh was also recorded in the revenue records on 6.12.07.\n<\/p>\n
        Dr. L.P. Misra appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that
\nsince on the date of moving application and before the last date of
\nsubmission of application forms, the private respondent was not having any
\nland and the land aforesaid which was shown to be possessed by him or for
\nwhich he had allegedly entered into an agreement to sell, already stood
\ntransferred, therefore, he could not have been awarded any marks under the
\ncaption ‘can arrange’.\n<\/p>\n
        The argument is that even under the caption ‘can arrange’ the
\napplicant has to show a specific land\/plot or the land for godown and land
\nfor the shop\/showroom and since the private respondent was not having any
\nsuch land or shop, no marks could have been awarded to him under the said
\ncaption and, as a matter of fact, zero marks should have been given,
\nwhereas he has been awarded ten marks.\n<\/p>\n
        In support of his plea that even under the caption ‘can arrange’ there
\nhas to be specific and identified land\/shop or the land, which the applicant
\ncan arrange on issuance of the letter of intent, he relies upon Clause 9 of the
\nbrochure, which has the heading ‘construction of godown\/showroom on the
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
site as mentioned in the application form’ and reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “9. Construction of Godown\/Showroom on the
\n        site as mentioned in application form:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                The applicants who readily have suitable
\n        godown\/land for construction of godown for storage of
\n        filled LPG cylinders and shop\/land for construction of
\n        shop for LPG showroom for setting up of LPG
\n        distributorship or have a firm commitment from the land
\n        owner for purchase\/lease or can arrange it are accordingly
\n        awarded marks. The details given in the application alone
\n        will be considered for this purpose and the applicant will
\n        not be given any opportunity to offer any other land
\n        subsequently (even at the time of interview). For this
\n        purpose, the land owned by the family members (as defined
\n        in multiple distributorship norm) would also be considered
\n        as belonging to the applicant subject to attaching the
\n        consent of the concerned family members.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                After selection of the applicant, physical
\n        verification of the godown land\/godown as well as the
\n        showroom will be undertaken. In the event it is found that
\n        there is variance in the details given in the application
\n        form and or the plot is not found suitable for construction
\n        of godown or the godown is not approved by CCOE the
\n        allotment of the distributorship will stand automatically
\n        cancelled.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Or if an applicant, after selection on the above
\n        basis, is unable to make Godown duly approved by the
\n        Chief Controller of Explosives on the land\/godown
\n        indicated in the application and or Showroom as per the
\n        oil company’s standard layout on the land\/shop indicated
\n        in the application then the allotment of LPG
\n        distributorship made to the applicant will automatically
\n        stand cancelled.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Emphasis has been supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner
\non the aforesaid clause, which prohibits any change in the location of the
\nland, as against the land shown in the application form, on the basis of
\nwhich marks have been awarded, while constructing the godown\/showroom
\non the site and requires the construction of the godown\/showroom strictly in
\naccordance with the norms prescribed, with no variance in the details given
\nin the application form, which also says that if the plot is not found suitable
\nfor construction of godown then the allotment shall stand automatically
\ncancelled.\n<\/p>\n
       The moot question, therefore, involved is, when, by means of his
\napplication, the applicant informs that he ‘can arrange’ the land for the
\ngodown or for the showroom or for both of them, whether requires, the
\ndescription of the land with full details, which could be clearly identifiable
\n                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
on the site or it would be sufficient only to mention that he ‘can arrange’
\nwith no particulars of any land being given in the application form.\n<\/p>\n
        The petitioner’s counsel urged that in the absence of any such land
\nbeing shown in the application form, which could be arranged by the
\napplicant later on, such an applicant would be free to have any land and the
\nCorporation would not even know as to where the land for the purpose is to
\nbe allotted. This will also lead to open discrimination and may result in
\nfavouring the applicant, who otherwise does not have any land, where he
\ncan construct the godown or the showroom but even then he would be an
\napplicant for taking a chance so that if the letter of intent is issued, he may
\nbe able to arrange some land. The argument, therefore, is that if such fluid
\nand uncertain condition is allowed to stand, it would be prejudicial to the
\ninterest of such candidates, who otherwise have the specific land and who
\nhave offered the same for the purpose of construction of godown and
\nshowroom and that the requirement of ‘capability to provide infrastructure’
\nwould stand frustrated and defeated.\n<\/p>\n
        Sri Sunil Sharma appearing for the Corporation has drawn the
\nattention of the Court to the application form submitted by the private
\nrespondent and has clearly stated that despite the private respondent
\nfurnishing the notary affidavit with respect to plot nos. 577\/Ka and 580, and
\nthe affidavit of his father, the same has not been taken into account, as the
\nprivate respondent had not applied or had claimed that he was having any
\nland under the agreement to sell or lease but has applied under the caption
\n‘can arrange’, namely, the land. Since the private respondent did not mention
\nin his application form that he was having any agreement to sell or lease of
\nland, therefore, the notary affidavit given by him was neither required nor
\nwas admissible nor was considered. In view of the specific case of the
\nprivate respondent and information given by him in the application form
\nthat he ‘can arrange’ the land, he was given ten marks under the said caption.\n<\/p>\n
        Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner’s plea that the
\nprivate respondent was not having any land on the last date of submission of
\nforms, as the plots aforesaid were transferred, is of no relevance, as the
\nCorporation never awarded any marks to the private respondent on the basis
\nof the said notary affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
        It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the Corporation
\nthat under the caption ‘can arrange’ there is no requirement that the applicant
\n                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
must possess some land on the date of submission of application form or
\nthat he\/she must indicate in the application form, a particular specified piece
\nof land, fully identifiable, which he\/she would necessarily arrange\/acquire
\nin case the distributorship is awarded to him\/her. The requirement of the
\naforesaid condition would be fulfilled if the applicant only mentions that he
\n‘can arrange’ the land.\n<\/p>\n
        In response to the argument that such an interpretation of the
\naforesaid clause would lead to favouritism and nepotism and also give a
\nchance to such persons, who do not have any land to make arrangement by
\ntaking a chance after the award of distributorship\/issuance of letter of intent,
\nit has been submitted that the Corporation specifies the location where the
\ngodown and the showroom are to be constructed on the award of
\ndistributorship, therefore, whatever land is shown to the Corporation by the
\napplicant, namely, whatever land he\/she arranges for the purpose, has
\nnecessarily to be within the locality advertised and must be suitable for the
\npurpose. In case the land so arranged, does not fulfil the criteria\/norms of
\nlocation or suitability or both or any of them, the distributorship shall not be
\ngiven to such an applicant and if given, would stand cancelled
\nautomatically.\n<\/p>\n
        On a close scrutiny of the criteria under the head ‘capability to
\nprovide infrastructure’, it is evident that there are three criterion for award of
\nmarks, namely, (i) where the applicant either owns or has a registered sale
\ndeed having clear title of the suitable land\/godown for construction of
\ngodown in his favour, in which case 25 marks are to be awarded for the
\nconstruction of godown; (ii) where there is firm offer for example, having
\nagreement to sell\/lease of suitable land\/godown, then he has to be awarded
\nlesser marks, namely, 18; and (iii) in case he can arrange the land for the
\npurpose, he is to be awarded only 10 marks. The first criteria does not have
\nany ambiguity as the suitable land\/godown is owned by the
\ncandidate\/applicant, who is either having a clear title or a registered sale
\ndeed in his favour. In such a case, the land belongs to the applicant and he is
\nthe owner thereof and, therefore, he would specify the land, namely,
\nparticular land, where the godown is to be constructed or where the
\nshowroom exists.\n<\/p>\n
        Likewise, if there is an agreement to purchase or lease of the
\nsuitable land for godown, then it would mean a ‘firm offer’ with respect to a
\n                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
land detailed in such agreement or lease. This will also give the details of
\nthe particular specified land, where the godown would be constructed but
\nwhere the applicant does not own or does not have a clear title or registered
\nsale deed nor gives a ‘firm offer’ like agreement to purchase or lease of the
\nsuitable land, then the third criteria can be availed of, namely, such an
\napplicant ‘can arrange’ the land, as required. In case the requirement under
\nthe caption ‘can arrange’ would have been, to specify and detail the
\nparticular land, which the applicant can arrange, there would have been
\nsome indication to that effect in the said column. It is only for such an
\napplicant who is readily not having any land, has only to mention that he
\n‘can arrange’ the land, for having an opportunity to participate in the
\nselection, subject to other conditions being fulfilled by him and, of course,
\nsuch a land has to be arranged by him as per the description and norms
\nprescribed by the Corporation and within the time, as may be provided after
\nthe issuance of the letter of intent or at the appropriate stage, as the
\nCorporation specifies but before the final award of distributorship.\n<\/p>\n
        If this clause is to be interpreted in any other manner, it would defeat
\nthe very object and purpose of providing an opportunity to such applicants,
\nwho are neither title holders of the land nor they are owners of the same nor
\nthey are lessees and nor have entered into any agreement to purchase of any
\nland.\n<\/p>\n
        Needless to mention that an applicant, who is having a clear title or
\nregistered sale deed of the land, is having a specific land, which cannot be
\nallowed to be changed after the award of distributorship as the marks are
\nawarded to him on being satisfied about the location in the area, in respect
\nof which advertisement has been issued, in terms of Clause 9 of the
\nbrochure.\n<\/p>\n
        Similarly, if there is a firm offer with respect to a particular land, as
\nshown in the agreement to purchase or in the lease of the land, such a land
\nalso cannot be changed after the award of distributorship, as the marks are
\nawarded under the said caption, keeping in mind the location of the land.
\nThe ‘Firm Offer, a term which has been used in a matter where agreement to
\npurchase\/lease of the land is produced, has been deliberately and
\nconsciously put, to indicate that in the absence of any firm offer in that
\ncategory, marks would not be allotted. In other words, if there is an
\nagreement to purchase or lease of suitable land, then it is undoubtedly a firm
\n                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
offer of having a land on the award of distributorship, where the godown
\nand showroom would be constructed, which again cannot be changed.\n<\/p>\n
       In regard to the third caption\/criteria ‘can arrange’, the advertisement
\nor the brochure does not say that there should be a ‘firm offer’ of such a land
\nnor such a condition could have been placed for making the said option
\nworkable. If an applicant gives a firm offer then it means that he is
\npossessed of some agreement of purchase or lease of a particular land and,
\ntherefore, in such a situation, the applicant cannot or will not make claim
\nunder the caption ‘can arrange’ and he is to be awarded marks under the
\ncaption ‘firm offer’. But in a case, where there is no land available with the
\napplicant, which he could specify at the time of filing the application, he is
\npermitted to claim or apply for distributorship under the caption ‘can
\narrange’, the land or godown or the showroom, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
       We also find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the
\nCorporation that this offer of land under the caption ‘can arrange’ is in no
\nway detrimental to the interest of the applicants, who claim land either
\nunder their own title or under registered sale deed or under firm offer, as
\nsuch applicants would be awarded marks on the criteria aforesaid, which are
\nmuch higher than the marks, which are to be allotted to the applicants, who
\nclaim for distributorship or apply for the same under the caption ‘can
\narrange’.\n<\/p>\n
       Further the location of the land and its suitability still has to be
\nadjudged by the Corporation and only when the Corporation feels satisfied
\nthat the land so arranged within the given time\/prescribed time, meets the
\nrequirement and is situated within the locality advertised, only then
\ndistributorship can be awarded or continued, otherwise the same shall stand
\ncancelled automatically.\n<\/p>\n
       Interpretation of Clause 9, which says that location of a site, which
\nhas been given in the application form cannot allowed to be changed at the
\ntime of construction of godown or showroom and that if there is any
\nvariance, the distributorship shall stand cancelled automatically, would not
\nmean that in a case, where the applicant has stated that he can arrange the
\nland, he has necessarily to show such a land in the application form but, as a
\nmatter of fact, when he arranges the land, which is found appropriate and
\nsuitable and which conforms to the requirement of advertisement, the same
\ncannot be allowed to be changed later on and the condition of no change of
\n                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
such land, as has been made applicable in the case of land owned by the
\napplicant or where the applicant is having firm offer, would equally apply
\non such an ‘arranged land’.\n<\/p>\n
       Thus, the said clause does not in any way supports the plea of the
\npetitioner that the applicant who says that he can arrange the land, has to
\nspecify a particular piece of land in the application form itself.\n<\/p>\n
       The words ‘can arrange’ themselves speak and mean in their ordinary
\ngrammatical meaning that the land is to be arranged later on or it can be
\narranged later on. What this later point of time would be, has to be
\nprescribed by the Corporation but it necessarily means that it cannot be at
\nthe time of filing of the application form. ‘Can arrange’ means that the land
\ncan be arranged in future, at some point of time, which may be prescribed
\nby the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
       If an applicant, who is already having a land and the requirement
\nalso being that only a person who has a specific land, though may not be
\npossessed of the title, would only be entitled to apply, the caption would
\nhave been ‘a person who has already arranged the land’ or so to say ‘has an
\narranged land’ not ‘can arrange’ the land.\n<\/p>\n
       In case the Corporation ever intended that such an applicant should
\nalso mention or declare the land which he could arrange later on, it would
\nhave specified this requirement in the brochure itself, but having not done
\nso, the policy as framed by the Corporation in the matter of award of
\ndistributorship cannot be questioned nor can be declared as invalid.\n<\/p>\n
       We are also informed that all the oil companies have prescribed
\nsame terms and conditions and the same criteria of ‘can arrange’, is being
\nfollowed uniformly in the matters of award of distributorship and dealership
\nthroughout.\n<\/p>\n
       We are thus, of the considered opinion that the Corporation having
\nnot considered the notary affidavit or so called agreement with respect to
\nthe plots mentioned therein at any point of time, since the private
\nrespondent had applied only under the caption of ‘can arrange’ the land and
\nthe minimum marks have been awarded to him under the caption ‘can
\narrange’ the land, no illegality or irregularity can be said to have been
\ncommitted by the Corporation in awarding ten marms.\n<\/p>\n
       The argument that the applicant was neither having any land nor
\nindicated any land on the date of application, thus, is devoid of merit and
\n                                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
does not affect the selection of the private respondent in any manner.\n<\/p>\n
       The petitioner’s marks, on representations being considered by the
\nCorporation, though have been increased but in view of the fact that still the
\nprivate respondent Manoj Kumar Singh has the highest marks, the selection
\nso made cannot be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
       We thus, do not find any merit in the challenge to the selection of
\nprivate respondent by the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Singh, in Writ Petition
\nNo. 7839 (MB) of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
       Sri Manish Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner Ahsan
\nMohammad Ali, very fairly stated that the petitioner was aggrieved by the
\nreallocation of higher marks to Ashok Kumar Singh, because of which his
\nposition has gone down to number 3, as against the original positiion at
\nserial no. 2 and, therefore, his petition would survive if selection of the
\nprivate respondent is cancelled by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
       In so far Ahsan Mohammad Ali, namely, Writ Petition No. 8875
\n(MB) of 2008, is concerned, he already stands at serial no. 3 of the select
\nlist and the selection of respondent, Manoj Kumar Singh having been
\nupheld, he does not have any chance for being selected. Since no relief can
\nbe granted to him, the petition filed by him thus, is of no consequence,
\nwhich is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
       For the reasons stated above, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
\nInterim order, if any, stands discharged. Costs easy.\n<\/p>\n
Dated: January 25, 2010
\nMFA\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Ashok Kumar Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation … on 25 January, 2010 1 Reserved Writ Petition No. 7839 (MB) of 2007 Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others; and Writ Petition No. 8875 (MB) of 2008 Ahsan Mohammad Ali Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-213602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAshok Kumar Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashok Kumar Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-08T14:26:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashok Kumar Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation … on 25 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-08T14:26:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4308,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-08T14:26:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation … on 25 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ashok Kumar Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashok Kumar Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-08T14:26:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashok Kumar Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation … on 25 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-08T14:26:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010"},"wordCount":4308,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010","name":"Ashok Kumar Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-08T14:26:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-singh-vs-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashok Kumar Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation … on 25 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=213602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213602\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}