Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sarita Sharma vs Indian Oil Corp Ltd And Ors on 9 September, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9613/2007 Sarita Sharma Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others. DATE OF ORDER: 09.09.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. Gaurav Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr. K. Verma, Addl. G.C., for the respondents. BY THE COURT:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The matter has come up for orders on an application filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 with a prayer that application may be allowed and result ready in sealed cover be allowed to be placed before this Court for its perusal, at the time of consideration of this application. However, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard and the same is being disposed off finally.
3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition, wherein it has been averred that Respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement in respect of appointments of Operators of Kishan Seva Kendra in Rajasthan State. The petitioner applied for Baghera Location in District Ajmer. However, her application could not reach in time, therefore, she preferred this writ petition with a prayer that writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider her application.
4. Initially, this Court, while issuing notice to show cause, passed an interim order on 20.11.2007 that meanwhile, the petitioner shall be interviewed provisionally for allotment of retail outlet of Kishan Seva Kendra at Bhagora Distt. Ajmer scheduled to be held on 21.11.2007.
5. As per submission of learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, the petitioner did not appear for interview on 21.11.2007 in person and her husband appeared, therefore, he was not interviewed, whereas according to the petitioner, the petitioner appeared on 21.11.2007 for interview, but she was not interviewed.
6. Be that as it may, the matter remained pending and in the meantime, a contempt petition was also filed. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 13.04.2011 directed that the respondents will proceed with the selection after calling the petitioner for interview on the provisional basis and the result of the selection may be kept in sealed cover and be brought before this Court immediately on completion of selection process. It was also ordered that the case will be listed as and when an application is moved indicating completion of process of selection. In these circumstances, Respondent No. 1 has moved an application along with the result of selection in sealed cover.
7. The result was opened in the Court and as per result sheet, it appears that there were total five applicants who applied for this location i.e. Baghera. Out of five applicants, Applicant No. 4, Smt. Meena Rathore remained absent on 15.07.2011, the date fixed for interview. So far as remaining four applicants including present petitioner are concerned, a report has been given that due to some discrepancy in their forms or documents, they all were found ineligible, meaning thereby, no one has been selected in the interview took place on 15.07.2011. The original result sheet has been returned to learned counsel for the respondents.
8. In these circumstances, no further order is required to be passed in the writ petition and the writ petition, application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and application filed by Respondent No. 1, are disposed off. However, it will be open for Respondent No. 1 to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J.
Manoj, S.No.S.156