Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Rai vs Union Of India Thru Secy. And Others on 10 February, 2015
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Reserved Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44699 of 2012 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Rai Respondent :- Union Of India Thru Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Pandey,Lopa Mudra Ojha,U.N.Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,K.K. Mishra,Ms.Anuradha Sundaram,S.C.,S.K.Mishra,Sanjiv Singh,Somesh.Khare. Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 17.8.2012 passed by the respondent no. 3, General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, U.P., Lucknow, whereby the candidature as well as selection of the petitioner for Kisan Seva Kendra/ Retail Outlet in the district of Kushinagar, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 30.11.2010, has been cancelled.
The brief facts, which are necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the case are that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') issued an advertisement on 30.11.2010 in various newspapers inviting applications from the eligible candidates for allotment of dealership of Kisan Sewa Kendra (K.S.K.)/ Retail Outlet at several locations. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the advertisement and he along with other ten candidates was called for interview, which was held on 28.7.2011. On the basis of the interview, a select list was published by the respondent Corporation in which the petitioner was placed at first position in order of merit 95.47 marks and the respondent no. 5, Sri Abhay Kumar Mishra, was placed at second position with 91.64 marks and one Sri Satyendra Mishra was placed at third position with 90.05 marks. The respondent no. 5, who was 2nd position holder, feeling aggrieved with the select list, filed an objection before the authority of the corporation against the selection of the petitioner at first place in the select list with regard to the land, which was offered by the petitioner and also with regard to professional degree, which was submitted by him along with his application form. When the aforesaid objections of the respondent no. 5 remained undecided he preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9688 of 2012, Abhay Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and others, before this court, which was finally disposed of vide order dated 23.2.2012 with the direction to the respondent Corporation for deciding the objections by the General Manager, respondent no. 3 by an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order.
In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondent- corporation after hearing both the parties passed the order impugned in the present writ petition, whereby, the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of Kisan Seva Kendra was rejected. Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court with averments that he had submitted some documents along with the letter dated 11.6.2012 before the respondent Corporation as additional evidence and to put forward his claim that the certificate bearing No. A-3008 issued by the Indian Institute of Planning & Management, Pune, was not a forged document but there was some typographical/ computer error in the aforesaid certificate and the same ought not to have been considered as forged one. He also submitted that due to mistake on the part of the petitioner himself that he did not check his certificate prior to submitting the application for KSK/ Retail outlet dealership, whereas he should have to check all the documents, this discrepancy had occurred but the respondent Corporation without considering his explanation/ objection passed the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of K.S.K./ Retail outlet.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation it has been alleged that the investigations revealed that the petitioner had submitted certificate no. 3008 from IIPM, Pune. Assistant Dean Deptt. of Academics, IIPM, Pune, informed through a letter dated 15.2.2012 that the certificate bearing S.No. 3008 had been issued in the name of Mr. Sandeep Agarwal, a student of PGP/SS/2005-07 batch. It has also been mentioned in the letter that the petitioner was a registered student of PGP/FW/2003-05 batch and he had not completed all the formalities regarding the course till date. Mail dated 7.12.2011 sent by Sh. Dinesh Kumar Raghav, Associated Controller of Examinations, IIPM to respondent no. 5, Abhay Kumar Mishra, which he submitted during the hearing on 25.5.2012 in support of his allegation against the petitioner also fortified the fact that the certificate attached by the petitioner was forged and there was no student with the name of Manoj Rai in the particular batch in IIPM.
Learned counsel for Indian Oil Corporation has contended that if the petitioner was in possession of any provisional certificate said to have been issued on 15.5.2005, it could have been submitted by him along with application form, which was not done whereas the same was furnished to the investigating officer during investigation, as such it could not be accepted as document appended with the application form. In the circumstances the petitioner was found to be ineligible and unqualified and his candidature was cancelled. Moreover, As per policy 'no additional document whatsoever was to be accepted or considered after the cut-off date of application form' and also, 'no addition/ deletion/alteration was to be permitted in the application once it is submitted.
We have heard Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Sanjiv Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 and also Sri Somesh Khare, appearing for respondent no. 5.
In the present case the certificate attached by the petitioner with his application form was not found genuine on an enquiry being made by the Corporation.
The petitioner has admitted the fact that the certificate submitted by him was not correct, however, he has attributed the mistake to computer error. He has also admitted that there was a mistake on his part and he should have checked his educational certificates before submitting them with his application for K.S.K./ Retail Outlet dealership.
The brochure issued by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited, containing guidelines with regard to selection of Petrol/ Diesel Rural Retail Outlet (Kisan Seva Kendra) dealers has been filed by the respondents, which provides as under:
"if any statement made in the application or in the document enclosed therewith by the candidate, at any stage, is found to be incorrect or false and/ or the applicant conceals any information, which if declared, would have made him/ her ineligible for dealership, the application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason and in case the applicant has been appointed as a dealer, the dealership is liable to be terminated. In such cases the candidate/ dealer shall have no claim whatsoever against IOCL."
Even assuming that due to computer error there occurred some printing mistake in the certificate, submitted by the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner was not liable to be considered in view of the Corporation's policy and the brochure issued by the respondent Corporation which clearly bars acceptance of any document after expiry of the cut-off date. Under the circumstances the respondent Corporation has rightly rejected his application.
It is also to be noted that in pursuance of order dated 6.12.2013 of this court whereby the Indian Oil Corporation was directed to proceed to take action for allotment of KSK/ Retail Outlet in favour of the next empanelled candidate, the Indian Oil Corporation has already allotted the dealership of K.S.K./ Retail Outlet to respondent no. 5, he being the next candidate holding second position in merit.
There appears no ground to cancel the dealership already allotted to respondent no. 5 after such a long gap.
Under these circumstances we are of the firm view that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition lacks merit. It is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 10.02.2015 Pcl