Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Navneet Gupta vs U O I (Ministry Of Petroleum )Ors on 23 January, 2012
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.962/2012 (Navneet Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors.) Date of Order : 23.01.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Navneet Gupta, petitioner in person. The respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter 'BPCL') along with other petroleum companies, issued a joint advertisement on 13.03.2010 inviting applications for allotment of LPG distributorship for different locations in the state of Rajasthan. In pursuance of the above advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application to BPCL for allotment of LPG distributorship for Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur under open category purportedly along with required documents and certificates. Interviews for selection for award of LPG distributorship were held at Jaipur LPG Territory Office of BPCL from 03.02.2011 to 04.02.2011 wherein the petitioner participated. The result of the interviews were published on 04.02.2011 and the petitioner was awarded a total 96.17 marks out of 100 whereas one Alok Dixit, alleged to be an employee of a sister concern of the respondents, was awarded 97.83 marks out of 100 and as such was placed at merit no.1 in the panel and thus selected for the award of LPG distributorship for Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.
Aggrieved of the action taken by the respondent-BPCL in unlawfully and unjustly placing Alok Dixit at merit No.1 of the panel for the award of LPG distributorship for Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, the petitioner preferred a SBCWP No.6062/2011, which came to be dismissed on 06.05.2011. A DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.687/2011 followed before this Court. On 28.07.2011, on the said DB appeal coming up before the Division Bench, the respondent-BPCL referred to a communication dated 21.06.2011 whereunder the candidature of Alok Dixit at merit No.1 of the panel for the award of LPG distributorship for Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur had been cancelled. Consequently, the DB Special Appeal (Writ) was rendered infructuous as recorded in the order of this Court on 28.07.2011.
The petitioner, who appeared in person, has argued that the cancellation of Alok Dixit's candidature ought to have entailed the grant for LPG distributorship to him as he was placed at merit No.2 in the panel for the award of LPG distributorship for Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. He submits that however the respondent-BPCL was bent upon denying the petitioner his right and consequently vide order dated 27.12.2011 proceeded to reject the petitioner's candidature and his merit in the panel on allegedly flimsy grounds that in the field verification of the petitioner's experience certificate, it transpired that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner relating to having worked with M/s Kankaria Gas Service, Jaipur, had not been found to be substantiated by any documentary evidence such as a salary slip, attendance record and further that the title of the offered land had not been found to be clear. According to the petitioner, in response to the order of cancellation dated 27.12.2011 issued by the respondent-BPCL, he sent a notice for demand of justice dated 03.01.2012 through his lawyer where the petitioner states to have clarified his position both with regard to the experience certificate and the alleged imperfect title of the offered land. The petitioner also states to have made an online complaint on 30.12.2011 against the order dated 27.12.2011 before the Public Grievances Redressal Cell of the respondent-BPCL.
I have heard the petitioner and perused the writ petition as also the accompanying documents.
From the facts of the case as they transpire, the petitioner has already submitted his complaint to the Public Grievances Redressal Cell of the respondent-BPCL against the order of cancellation dated 27.12.2011 on 30.12.2011. The said complaint is under consideration by respondent-BPCL. Consequently, it is not fit and proper to allow the petitioner presently to avail of the parallel remedy by impugning the order dated 27.12.2011 also by way of this writ petition.
In the facts of the case, I would dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent-BPCL to dispose of the complaint filed by the petitioner on 30.12.2011 before its Public Grievances Redressal Cell by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that till the petitioner's complaint made on 30.12.2011 to the Public Grievances Redressal Cell is not disposed of by the respondent-BPCL, status quo with regard to the LPG distributorship for Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur shall be maintained.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Stay application is also disposed of.
(ALOK SHARMA), J MS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Manoj Solanki, Jr. P.A