Madras High Court
S.Karthik vs The Secretary To The Govt.Of India on 28 November, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.11.2012
CORAM:
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
W.P.Nos.3404, 10261, 13976 and 18054 of 2012
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012 in W.P.Nos.3404 and 18054 of 2012
& M.P.No.2 of 2012 in W.P.No.10261 of 2012 &
M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.13976 of 2012
S.Karthik .. Petitioner in
W.P.Nos.3404 and 10261 of 2012
K.Meera Pangayar Selvi .. Petitioner in
W.P.No.13976 of 2012
S.Gopu .. Petitioner in
W.P.No.18054 of 2012/5th respondent in
W.P.3404 and 10261 of 2012
Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Govt.of India
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
Shastri Bhavan
New Delhi 110 011
2. The Chairman
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road
Ballard Estate,
Mumbai 400 001
3. The Regional LPG Manager (South)
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Regional Office
No.1, Ranganathan Gardens
Off.11th Main Road, Annanagar
Chennai 600 040
4. The Territory Manager
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
LPG Filling Plant
Peelamedu,
Coimbatore 641 004
5. S.Gopu
6. Kaliesh Raja Chelladurai .. Respondents in W.P.No.3404 of 2012
1. The Secretary to the Govt.of India
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
Shastri Bhavan
New Delhi 110 011
2. The Chairman
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road
Ballard Estate,
Mumbai 400 001
3. The Regional LPG Manager (South)
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Regional Office
No.1, Ranganathan Gardens
Off.11th Main Road, Annanagar
Chennai 600 040
4. The Territory Manager
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
LPG Filling Plant
Peelamedu,
Coimbatore 641 004
5. Director- Marketing
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road
Ballard Estate
Mumbai 400 016
6. S.Gopu
7. Kaliesh Raja Chelladurai .. Respondents in W.P.No.10261 of 2012
1. The Government of India
rep.by the Secretary
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
Shastri Bhavan
New Delhi 110 011
2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
rep.by its Chairman
Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6
Currimbhoy Road
Ballard Estate,
Mumbai 400 001
3. The Regional LPG Manager (South)
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Regional Office
No.1, Ranganathan Gardens
Off.11th Main Road, Annanagar
Chennai 600 040
4. The Territory Manager
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
LPG Filling Plant
Peelamedu,
Coimbatore 641 004 .. Respondents in W.P.No.13976/ 2012
1. The Secretary to the Govt.of India
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
Shastri Bhavan
New Delhi 110 011
2. The Chairman
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road
Ballard Estate,
Mumbai 400 001
3. The Regional LPG Manager (South)
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Regional Office
No.1, Ranganathan Gardens
Off.11th Main Road, Annanagar
Chennai 600 040
4. The Territory Manager
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
LPG Filling Plant
Peelamedu,
Coimbatore 641 004
5. Director-Marketing
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbohoy Road
Ballard Estate
Mumbai 400 001 .. Respondents in W.P.No.18054/2012
Prayer in W.P.No.3404 of 2012: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of respondents 2 to 4 relating to the final mark sheet dated 03.11.2011 and 04.11.2011 for candidates for Domestic LPG Distributorship for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for Coimbatore (Race Course/Sungam) issued by the 4th respondent, quash the same and direct respondents 2 to 4 to conduct a fresh-interview based on the advertisement dated 15.06.2010 Published in Dinakaran with a specified time and award dealership to the most eligible person as per the guidelines.
Prayer in W.P.No.10261 of 2012: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 5th respondent pertaining to the circular Director (Marketing) LPG.CON date 14.03.2012 quash the same and direct respondents 2 to 5 to select a Domestic LPG Distribuotr for Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for Coimbatore (Race Course/Sangam) by conducting a fresh interview for the persons who had applied pursuant to their advertisement dated 15.06.2010 on the guidelines which were applicable on that date.
Prayer in W.P.No.13976 of 2012: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 4th Respondent in CBE:LPG:KODUVAI (OP) dated 18.04.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to issue the letter of intent to the Petitioner for LPG distributorship for Koduvai location, Tiruppur District in consonance with the Final Mark Sheet issued on 05.11.2011.
Prayer in W.P.No.18054 of 2012: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 5th respondent pertaining to the circular Dir (M) LPG.CON dated 14.3.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to validate the earlier selection process and regularize and confirm the petitioner's appointment as LPG distributor for BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD for Coimbatore (Race Course/Sungam) area.
=======================================================================
For Petitioner
in W.P.No.3404 &
10261 of 2012 :: Ms.Hema Sampath, Senior counsel
for Ms.R.Meenal
=======================================================================
For Petitioner
in W.P.No.13976
of 2012 :: Mr.T.Gowthaman
=======================================================================
For petitioner in
W.P.No.18054 of 2012 and
For R5 in W.P.3404 and
R6 10261 of 2012 :: Mr.D.Saikumaran
=======================================================================
For Respondents:
R1 in W.P.3404 &
10261 of 2012 :: Mr.K.Ravindranath, SCCG
=======================================================================
R1 in W.Ps.13976
and 18054 of 2012 :: Mr.N.Ramesh, CGSC
=======================================================================
R2 to R4 in W.P.Nos.3404 &
and 13976/2012
R2 to R5 in W.P.Nos.10261
and 18054/2012 :: Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan
=======================================================================
COMMON ORDER
All these writ petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide his order dated 31.07.2012.
2. W.P.Nos.3404 and 10261 of 2012 were filed by the same petitioner. In the first writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the final mark sheet prepared by the Interview Committee in respect of LPG Distributorship for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (Race Course/Sungam) in Coimbatore District. When that writ petition came up on 14.02.2012, notice regarding admission was ordered.
3. On notice from this Court, on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, a counter affidavit dated 22.03.2012 was filed.
4. Pending the said writ petition, the same petitioner preferred the second writ petition being W.P.No.10261 of 2012, seeking to challenge the order of the Director (Marketing) dated 14.03.2012 viz., Cancelling of interview and Selection for the location "Race Course/Sangam" and Selection by re-advertisement in terms of the guidelines. When the writ petition came up on 17.04.2012, it was admitted and in the application for interim injunction, only notice was ordered.
5. On notice, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 29.06.2012 on behalf of respondents 2 to 5.
6. It is seen from the records that the respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short BPCL) called for applications for appointment of LPG Distributors in respect of various locations in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry vide advertisement dated 15.06.2010. Serial No.59 in the said advertisement is for the location at Race Course Road /Sungam, Coimbatore. 49 candidates who applied were called for interview. Out of which 38 candidates appeared for the interview and the petitioner was one among them. L1 Committee consisted of two officers who scrutinised the documents submitted by each candidate and awarded marks under various Heads. The Interview Committee viz., L2 Committee consisted of one Senior Manager as Chairman and two Managers as Members and it awarded marks based on the experience, business ability and personality for each candidate. The marks given by L1 and L2 Committees were merged. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint to the second respondent by letters dated 04.11.2011 and 24.11.2011. The grievance projected by the petitioner did not relate to his own grievance and hence, the complaint was looked into by the Committee of two Chief Managers. The Committee came to the conclusion that error was done by the Interview Committee in transcribing the marks to all the applicants and the marks awarded was more than the maximum marks allotted under the parameters Credit Worthiness and Fixed/other assets in respect of the subject location 'Race Course/Sungam'. The said investigation report was considered by Regional LPG Manager and it was observed that similar error was done in another location 'Koduvai' by the said Interview Committee. The Committee should have been more careful and responsible before finalising the results. Hence, recommendation was made to cancel the interview for both the locations as this type of error was not covered in the policy guidelines of distributor selection.
7. In paragraph 6 of the counter, it was averred as follows:-
"6. I state that error committed by the Committee in transcribing the marks to all the candidates and since the marks awarded are more than the maximum marks allotted under that parameter such as Credit Worthiness, Fixed/other assets in respect of the location in question. The Director Marketing rightly came to the conclusion that these types of errors are not covered under the present guidelines policy of distributorship selection. The mistake in transcribing was widespread intermixed affecting the results so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons. Therefore the only way out was to cancel the whole selection in as much as the result of such a selection could not be acted or relied upon. That apart the infirmity in transcribing the marks vitiated the guidelines of LPG Distributorship. Hence the decision to cancel the selection by readvertising under present guidelines. The same was done after application of mind and cannot be subject to judicial review by this Hon'ble Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
8. In W.P.No.13976 of 2012, the petitioner was an applicant for the LPG Distributor for Koduvai, Tiruppur District and once again, he sought to challenge the cancellation of interview held on 05.11.2012 and Selection by re-advertisement in terms of the existing guidelines. The said writ petition was admitted on 30.05.2012. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted on 30.05.2012. Though the petitioner challenges only the consequential order, the reason for cancellation issued by the Director Marketing dated 14.03.2012 is already the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.10261 of 2012.
9. On notice, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 21.07.2012. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that there was a complaint by one S.Karthik regarding allocation of marks by the Committee in respect of the location at Race Course/Sungam and the same mistake was also done by the Committee in respect of the location at Koduvai. Hence, recommendations were made for cancellation of the selection.
10. In W.P.No.18054 of 2012, once again the petitioner was an applicant for LPG dealdership at Race Course Road/Sungam, Coimbatore. He challenges the order of the Director (Marketing) dated 14.03.2012 cancelling the interview. That writ petition when it came up on 13.07.2012, notice regarding admission was ordered.
11. It must be noted that allotment of dealership is purely commercial proposition by the BPCL. The petitioners in the absence of any letter of indent being given to them cannot challenge the cancellation. In the present case, one of the applicants themselves had made a complaint regarding the marks awarded by the Interview Committee. The Committee consisting of two Chief Managers, after making an enquiry came to the conclusion that there was an error done by the Interview Committee and hence recommendation was made to cancel the interview for both the locations. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any enforceable right regarding the cancellation and such a request in the absence of any malafide against the respondents cannot be gone into in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. In the light of the same, this Court do not think that any case is made out regarding cancellation of the result of the selection process. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the impugned order, it was stated that in view of the cancellation, selection will be done by re-advertisement under the existing guidelines. Therefore, they contended if new guidelines comprising of draw of lots come into force, then there will not be any selection by any Committee and it will be an arbitrary exercise of power. Inasmuch as they have not committed any irregularity and it was only the Interview Committee had committed error, the respondents cannot be allowed to make use of the new guidelines in respect of the two locations. This contention is well founded. As the selection process in these two locations were pursuant to the advertisement made on 15.06.2010, for the new selection, the respondents must carry out selection only on the basis of the old guidelines. While calling for candidates by re-advertisement, persons who already made applications need not be made to make any fresh application unless they want to bring in new details for being considered.
13. While the writ petitions challenging the order dated 14.03.2012 are rejected, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners while re-advertising for the locations at Race Course Road/Sungam, Coimbatore and Koduvai and the petitioners need not be directed to make any fresh application except indicating that they are willing to be considered for the said selection. The procedure to be followed cannot be on the basis of the new guidelines viz., draw of lots but on the basis of the guidelines which were available at the time of old notification.
14. With these observations, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
svki To
1. The Secretary to the Govt.of India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Shastri Bhavan New Delhi 110 011
2. The Chairman Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001
3. The Regional LPG Manager (South) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Regional Office No.1, Ranganathan Gardens Off.11th Main Road, Annanagar Chennai 600 040
4. The Territory Manager Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., LPG Filling Plant Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004
5. Director- Marketing Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road Ballard Estate Mumbai 400 016
6. Chairman Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001