Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sanjay Kumar Meena vs Indian Oil Corp Ltd &Anr; on 26 October, 2017
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: M.N.Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 547 / 2016
Sanjay Kumar Meena S/o Sh. Ramkhiladi Meena by Caste Mina,
Aged About 28 Years, Village Parbheni, Post Raini, District Alwar
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Registered Office At G-9, Ali
Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra, (East), Mumbai-400051 (India) Through
Its Manager
2. Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager (Marketing Division
Jaipur), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, First Floor, LIC Investment
Building, Phase-II, Near Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road,
Jaipur-302005
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. NK Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samit Bishnoi _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI Judgment 26/10/2017 By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the orders dated 23rd July, 2015 at Annexure-4 and dated 1 st December, 2015 at Annexure-5.
It is a case where an advertisement was issued to invite applications for Kisan Seva Kendra Dealership. The petitioner submitted an application and was the only applicant for Baleta, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar. The respondents informed that petitioner submitted an application on-line but hard copy of it has not been furnished. The respondents then sent another letter dated 1st December, 2015 stating that as per brochure/guidelines, (2 of 3) [CW-547/2016] he was required to submit on-line application with its hard copy. The on-line application was submitted but hard copy furnished is not of the on-line application but in the old format. In view of the above, he was not not held eligible for consideration of his candidature. The relevant para of the brochure/guidelines is quoted hereunder for ready reference to show requirement about submission of application on-line with hard copy of the said application:
"F. On-line Application:
Facility to submit application on-line is also provided in our Web site. The prospective applicant can fill up the on-line application form, take print out of the filled in application form on plain paper, affix the photograph, sign and attach the relevant documents and should submit the same along with Non-refundable application fee and IDP, if applicable, by separate Demand Drafts/Pay Orders drawn on any Scheduled Bank so as to reach the concerned office as mentioned in the advertisement.
For candidates applying on-line, the last date for filing application will remain the same as mentioned in the advertisement. Further, 7 days' additional time will be given for submission of hard copy of the on-line application with relevant documents. The facility for submission of on-line application will be withdrawn immediately after the cut-off time and date. If the applicant fails to submit his/her on-line application on the due date and time due to any technical reasons whatsoever the company shall not be responsible and no request for subsequent submission of the application will be entertained.
(3 of 3) [CW-547/2016] In case the On-line applicant is unable to submit the hard copy of the on-line application at the designated office of the Corporation within the cut-off date and time, such applicants will be treated as ineligible."
The petitioner has made contest on the issue. The perusal of Annexure-2 shows firstly on-line application but thereupon from Page 33 onwards, a hard copy of the application in the old format and not a copy of the on-line application. To verify the fact that hard copy submitted by the petitioner to the respondents was same as was on-line application or different, learned counsel for respondents was asked to produce both the copies. In pursuance of the direction, copies of on-line application as well as hard copy of the application have been submitted. The hard copy submitted by the petitioner is not the copy of on-line application. In view of the above, the petitioner failed to comply the requirement, as given in Para F of the brochure/guidelines, quoted above.
In the light of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed.
(MN BHANDARI) J.
FRBOHRA