Delhi High Court - Orders
Abhishek Shukla vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 7 April, 2021
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9343/2020
ABHISHEK SHUKLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kushagra Pandey, Ms. Ankita
Gupta and Mr. Abhishek Gupta,
Advs.
versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajiv Shukla, Ms. Shivani
Kapoor, Mr. Gorang Goyal and Mr.
Sanjay Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
ORDER
% 07.04.2021
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the grounds averred above, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-
(a) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to permit the petitioner to participate in the ongoing GD/GT & PI rounds for which he was called on 04.11.2020; and / or
(b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to consider Petitioner's representation dated 10.11.2020 and the documents supplied therewith and take a reasoned decision thereon before the completion of the recruitment process for the Law Officers (Grade B); and / or
(c) Pass any other and further order and / or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.
2. It is the case of the petitioner and so contended by his Counsel Mr. Kushagra Pandey, that the petitioner is a B.A. LL.B (Hons.) from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Law University, Lucknow having passed out in the year 2012. Between the years 2012-2018, he worked in various law firms as Associate / Senior Associate. On July 4, 2019 he was appointed as Manager (Legal) in Punjab National Bank and is presently posted at its Head Office at Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. In the year 2019 respondent Corporation had issued an advertisement for recruiting Law Officers inter-alia in Grade-B (Assistant Legal Manager). The basis for selection was also the following:
i. CLAT-2019 (PG Exam) scores were to be used for shortlisting candidates for further selection process. ii. Further selection process comprises of GD/GT & PI. iii. The minimum experience in the legal field required was that candidate has to be a lawyer / Advocate in a reputed law firm on its rolls or on exclusive retainership basis (reputed law firm implies a law firm having 10 years standing and having at least 25 lawyers / Advocates on its rolls as on March 31, 2019).
4. On August 2, 2019, petitioner makes online application with the respondent Corporation on the basis of his CLAT-2019 registration number.
5. On October 9, 2019, respondent Corporation informs the petitioner vide e-mail to upload the documents in support of his online application form. The petitioner uploaded the same on October 9, 2019 itself.
6. According to Mr. Pandey, the petitioner being successful in CLAT- 2019 (PG Programme) and meet the requisite criterion prescribed by the respondent Corporation, received an e-mail from the respondent Corporation informing him of his provisional shortlisting for further selection process. According to Mr. Pandey, the petitioner was asked to report at the respondent Corporation office at Gurugram on November 4, 2020 at 8.30 am. It was vide e-mail dated October 19, 2020, the petitioner was informed for the first time about the manner in which the documents showing work experience are to be submitted. This includes the following:
"8. Important Instructions: You are advised to go through the attached detailed advertisement for Recruitment of Experience Law Officers through Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) - 2019 *** d. Work Experiences: All your work experience must fall in the essential work experience areas as mentioned in detailed advertisement for Recruitment of Experienced Law Officers through Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) - 2019 ***
3. Experience in Reputed Law Firm: In addition to documents listed in above [para d).1], in case you have worked in a reputed Law firm
(s), you must furnish relevant document (s) as proof towards meeting following aspects for each of the respective reputed law firm [as sought in detailed advertisement]:
a. Nature of Employment - Full Time / Exclusive Retainership [in case worked in Law Firm] / any other (specify, if any other).
b. Standing of the Law Firm c. Number of Lawyers / Advocates on rolls d. Detailed works / assignments handled by you in each law firm (s) ***
9. PLEASE NOTE: You may not be allowed to appear in GD, GT and PI if you fail to furnish documents in support of information sought in above paras.
a. In addition to complying with all of the above points, you must also comply with other requirements as mentioned in detailed advertisement for Recruitment of Experienced Law Officers through Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) - 2019
b) You must bring all documents / certificates / testimonials in ORIGINAL on the day of GD, GT and PI failing which you may not be allowed to participate in GD, GT and PI and may render your candidature liable for rejection.
c) A check list of documents is attached. We urge you to go through it carefully and ensure you mandatorily carry all documents / certificate/ testimonials mentioned therein."
7. Petitioner reports for the interview with all the documents, but he was prohibited by the Officer of the respondent Corporation from taking GD/GT & PI purportedly on the ground that the documents submitted by the petitioner in respect of two previous employers viz. M/s. S.N.G Partners and M/s. HSA Advocates do not show that they have more than 25 Advocates on their rolls. Mr. Pandey submits that the petitioner tried to clarify that between submission of the documents and the GD/GT & PI, all the four firms, where the petitioner had attained post qualification experience updated their profile and he is carrying their updated profiles which expressly state inter alia that they all have more than 25 lawyers / Advocates on their rolls. He requested the Officer to allow him to participate in the GD / GT & PI. The petitioner was precluded from submitting such information on the letter head of the firms as due to COVID all these firms are operating on virtual basis.
8. Mr. Pandey states that these two firms are well-known firms in the legal fraternity and there cannot be any iota of doubt that these firms have 25 partners / Advocates working with it. In any case, he submits that the petitioner not being allowed to participate in the GD / GT & PI, made a representation to the respondent Corporation on November 10, 2020 requesting them not to cancel his candidature and permit him to submit the documents. He has sent profiles of his erstwhile four firms where he worked as an Associate / Senior Associate, but no response has been received from the respondent Corporation on the same, which made him to file the present petition.
9. The submission of Mr. Pandey is that the petitioner while uploading the documents had uploaded the screenshots of the profiles of the four firms. He concedes to the fact that the profiles of two firms did not depict that it has 25 Advocates / Lawyers working with it. According to him, this objection of the respondents is very hyper-technical and could have been allowed to be rectified, as the purpose of the information sought is only to ascertain that the firms having 25 Lawyers / Advocates are reputed firms. That apart, he has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Renu and Ors. V. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi and Anr. wherein the Supreme Court held that the process of recruitment must be fair and transparent. He also relied upon two Division Bench Judgments in the cases of Ajay Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission, W.P(C) 605/2015 decided on January 21, 2015 and Bal Kishan Yadav v. Union of India and Anr. W.P.(C) 5643/2013 decided on November 20, 2014 in support of his submission that cancelling the candidature on the ground of non-submission of documents is a very hyper technical approach, and a liberal view should be taken to enable a candidate to rectify an inadvertent error. The respondent Corporation by not allowing the petitioner to rectify the same has acted in a most arbitrary manner. He states, this Court while issuing notice made it clear that further process shall be subject to the outcome of the present petition and the said order protects the interest of the petitioner and the petition cannot be said to have become infructuous as stated by Mr. Rajiv Shukla, learned Counsel for respondent Corporation.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation would oppose the petition by stating that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands. He states, selection process was completed on November 4, 2020 itself and there is no process which is continuing as sought to be stated by the petitioner in the petition. He states, the petitioner having not uploaded the documents as required under the advertisement, which clearly stipulated that a candidate should have experience in a reputed law firm having at least 25 Lawyers / Advocates on its roll as on March 31, 2019, with regard to two firms, was rightly not allowed to participate in the GD/GT and PI. The plea of Mr. Pandey that it is a hyper-technical objection and the petitioner should have been allowed to submit the documents later would not be correct as such documents depict the eligibility of the petitioner, having experience in a reputed law firm. According to him, the issue needs to be seen from the perspective of the respondent Corporation. The respondent Corporation while making a recruitment has to be fair and transparent in its action. In the absence of documents with regard to two firms having 25 Advocates / Lawyers working with it as on March 31, 2019, the eligibility of the petitioner is not established and was rightly not allowed to participate in GD/GT and PI. He states, present petition is bereft of merit and needs to be dismissed.
11. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The issue which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the respondent corporation has rightly not allowed the petitioner to participate in the GD / GT and PI and thereby cancelling the candidature of the petitioner. To answer this, it has to be seen whether the petitioner had uploaded all the documents necessary to show his experience as an Advocate in four reputed firms of which reference has been given by him in his application form. The advertisement issued clearly stipulate that the candidate has to submit the proof that he has experience as an Advocate / Lawyer in a reputed law firm, having experience of ten years standing and at least 25 Lawyers / Advocates. The said stipulation is enough indication that the candidate must have relevant document in support thereof. The email dated October 09, 2019 also stated; (i) details of work description, period of work, name of company you worked for have already been submitted by you online at the time of registration for recruitment in IOCL through CLAT-2019. Therefore, please attach the supporting documents of those companies only; (ii) click 'submit' to upload the file. However, please ensure ONCE again that file being submitted contains all relevant information as after submitting no modification / changes / editing would be allowed; (iii) document submitted only on portal shall be acceptable.
12. The instructions are very clear, inasmuch as the document uploaded should contain all relevant information and the same only shall be acceptable. It follows, if a document does not have the relevant information no opportunity to modify / change would be allowed. So, the document / profile of the firm submitted by the petitioner which did not contain the information that the firm did have 25 Lawyers / Advocates could not have been allowed to be changed. Similarly, the e-mail dated October 19, 2020 clearly stipulated that the candidate has to upload all the documents in support of the application submitted by him. As the petitioner had represented that he had worked in two law firms being HSA and Link Legal, he was required to submit the relevant information that the said firms are reputed law firms. The petitioner had sent screenshots of the profiles of the firms. The screenshots do not depict that the firms have 25 Lawyers / Advocates on its roll as on March 31, 2019. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent Corporation should have allowed the petitioner to re-submit the profiles of the two firms at the time of the GD / GT and PI, is not appealing, as the instructions noted above, do not permit any change. Further, the fact the petitioner is a highly educated person, it mut be inferred that he has fully understood the contents of the advertisement and the emails to ensure compliance. The plea that the error was only hyper technical and should have been allowed to be corrected cannot be accepted. The deficiency in the documents shows the ineligibility of the petitioner for the said post. The Corporation was within its right to cancel the candidature, and disallowing the petitioner to participate in the GD / GT and PI. I do not see any illegality in that regard. In so far as the Judgments relied upon by Mr. Pandey in support of his case are concerned, there is no dispute on the proposition of law as laid down in M. Sudakar v. V. Manoharan and others (2011) 1 SCC 484 and also in the case of Renu and Ors. (supra) that the petition has not become infructuous and the selection has to be fair. Suffice to state, the petition has not become infructuous, this Court has protected the right of the petitioner, by stating that further process shall be subject to the outcome of the petition. Further, it goes without saying that every selection has to be fair.
13. In so far as the Judgments in the case of Ajay Kumar (supra) and Bal Kishan Yadav (supra) are concerned, this Court was dealing with candidates, who had applied for Class-IV / Sub-Inspector posts. The issue was non-submission of caste certificate by the candidates. It was in that regard this Court has said the employers / respondents must be liberal in allowing a candidate to submit the caste certificate even at a later point of time. Surely, the said Judgments, are distinguishable as they concerns with the rights of persons belonging to other backward classes; whereas the petitioner is educated person working as Law Officer in a reputed Bank should have been vigilant enough to ensure that all the necessary documents annexed with the advertisement are uploaded. I may refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of UPSC v. UOI GNCT, W.P.(C) 10058/2009 wherein the Division Bench has in para 27 has held as under:
"27. The present case is such a case where, because of a very large number of applications received by the UPSC, if it is compelled to accept procedurally incomplete applications, there would be serious practical difficulties that it would have to encounter and this may very well lead to a break down in the system. We also cannot overlook the fact that the applicants/Respondents are all highly educated persons claiming to have an LLB degree and three years experience at the Bar. Therefore, it must be assumed that they fully understood the contents of the advertisements and the DAF. There was a duty cast on them to correctly fill up the DAF and they cannot be allowed to contend that despite this, their application should be accepted even if it is incomplete only because procedure is the handmaid of justice."
14. I may state that on the last date of hearing, this court had directed Mr. Shukla to take instructions as to whether any vacancy exists in the post concerned and appointment letters have been issued to the selectees. Today Mr. Shukla clarified that there are no vacancy in the post of Law Officer and no appointment letters have been issued.
15. Be that as it may, in view of my above discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.
CM Nos. 1709/2021 & 1790/2021 Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J APRIL 07, 2021/jg