Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Amit Kumar Sharma vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd on 27 September, 2011
Author: Prem Shanker Asopa
Bench: Prem Shanker Asopa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER (1) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8210/2010 Vijendra Singh Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12640/2010 Amit Kumar Sharma Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (3) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12961/2010 Ishwar Dutt Chaturvedi and Ghanshyam Singh Shekhawat Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.& others DATE OF ORDER --- September 27,2011 PRESENT HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Dinesh Yadav, for the petitioner in CWP No.8210/2010 Mr.Biri Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Harendra Singh, for the petitioner in CWP No.12640/2010 Mr.Indrajeet Singh, for the petitioner in CWP No.12961/2010 Mr.Sudhanshu Kasliwal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.K.Verma, for the respondent HPCL BY THE COURT
(1) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2) With the consent of counsel for the parties, these three writ petitions are being finally decided at admission stage.
(3) Since common question of allotment of retail outlet at Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu is involved in all these three writ petitions, for which the petitioners were the applicants but none of them has been allotted the retail outlet, therefore, these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.
Common facts involved in all the three writ petitions (4) The respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited issued an advertisement dated 13.7.2009 (Anx.1 in CWP No.8210/2010) for appointment of the Retail Outlet Dealers at various places and invited applications from the candidates, out of which, one retail out let was situated at Village Udaipurwati in District Jhunjhunu at Sl.No.52, which was of open category. As per the aforesaid advertisement, the last date for receipt of the applications was 13.08.2009 and there is no dispute that all the petitioners filed their forms before the aforesaid last date. There is also no dispute that all the petitioners appeared before the Interview Board in pursuance to their respective applications on 4.3.2010. However, the dispute is with regard to non-awarding of the marks / reduction of marks and further, not alloting the retail outlet to Ishwar Dutt Chaturvedi and Ghanshyam Singh Shekhawat (petitioners in CWP No.12961/2010) who originally stood at Sl.No.2.
SB Civil Writ Petition No.8210/2010 Vijendra Singh Vs.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(5) By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside Clause 19(a) of the Guidelines for Selection Retail Outlet Dealers and further for a direction to quash and aside the provisional mark sheet dated 4.3.2010 and that the respondent may be directed to redraw the given mark sheet after due weightage for and to the petitioner as admissible to him and issue the letter of intent in favour of the petitioner for retail outlet dealership for Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu.
(6) The grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that as per the provisional mark sheet, the petitioner stood at the last number as no marks were awarded by the Interview Board for the land provided by the petitioner. The said grievance is based on the fact that prior to the filling of the form, the petitioner had purchased land as required by the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (in short the respondent HPCL) vide sale deed dated 10.8.2009; the said land was mutated in the name of the petitioner on 7.9.2009 and different Khata of the said land was opened. Moreover, the Tehsildar even submitted report on 18.12.2009 wherein it is mentioned that on the land of the petitioner is neither an encroachment nor any catchment area is being hindered. The Public Works Department had also issued a No Objection Certificate on 22.9.2009. The provisional mark sheet (Anx.3) was issued on 4.3.2010 according to which, the petitioner stood at the last number as no marks were awarded to him by the Interview Board for the land provided by the petitioner whereas he is entitled for the marks for the land, for the reason that for share i.e. 0.71 Hectare out of the total land measuring 1.42 Hectare the sale deed was executed in his favour, of which the map, report of the Halka Patwari, verification from the local revenue officer Tehsildar were deposited along with the application form and further, before the interview, the process of opening separate Khasra No., Khata, mutation, Jamabandi, Girdawari was completed and all those documents wee submitted by him on 4.3.2010 at the time of interview but the same have not been considered. On receipt of the aforesaid provisional mark sheet, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent HPCL on 17.3.2010 (Anx.5), which was acknowledged by the respondent HPCL and the said representation was treated as complaint under Clause 19(a) of the Guidelines for Selection Retail Outlet Dealers (in short `the Guidelines') relating to the grievance/complaint whereas the same was required to be considered as representation to correct the error on the part of the respondent HPCL of not awarding marks of land and the petitioner was entitled for the marks of the land which is to be added in the provisional mark-sheet.
(7) In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the relief, as stated above.
(8) In this writ petition, on 9.6.2010, an interim order was passed by this Court whereby the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to marks to be awarded for land, the petitioner has under his ownership and to proceed accordingly. In compliance of the interim order dated 9.6.2010, the respondent HPCL has passed a detailed order with regard to the petitioner and other complainants on 9.8.2010 which has been filed along with S.B.Civil Second Stay Petition No.5824/2010 in SB CWP No.8210/2010 Vijendra Singh V. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and marked as Annexure A-1, whereby the representation dated 17.3.2010 submitted by Vijendra Singh (petitioner in SB CWP No.8210/2010) was rejected and total 56.67 marks awarded to him excluding the marks of land were confirmed by considering the complaints of Ram Devi Saini and 35 others & Amit Kumar Sharma relating to the land offered by the petitioner Vijendra Singh and suppression of other information as well as unpartitioned land which was found to be true.
(9) It is pertinent to menton here that by the said order dated 9.8.2010, the marks of Amit Kumar Sharma (petitioner in SB CWP No.12640/2010) have been reduced from 88.84 to 54.89 by considering the nature of the complaint that the land offered by Amit Kumar Sharma is situated on SH-37 and is only 66 meters from BPC outlet as against the norm of 300 meters as per Rajasthan PWD and as such this land should have been disqualified. Thereafter, reference of the order dated 12.4.2010 in CWP No.4875/2010 was given in the case of Amit Kumar Sharma and in the column 'Status findings on investigation' it was mentioned ' Found to be true. Marks awarded to Shri Amit Kumar Sharma is reduced to 54.89 from 88.84. In the last of the aforesaid order dated 9.8.2010, it has been mentioned that as there is change in the ranking of merit panel, it has been decided to conduct re-interview of the eligible candidates as per the Guidelines.
(10) Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the documents submitted by the petitioner relating to the land along with the representation dated 17.3.2010 (Anx.5) are consequential to the sale deed dated 10.8.2009, therefore, the same will relate back to the sale deed which was submitted along with the application form in time and there was no requirement of the advertisement that the separate Khasra number and separate mutation is required, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to full marks. Counsel for the petitioner has also taken the ground of violation of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.
(11) No reply has been filed by the respondent HPCL.
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12640/2010 Amit Kumar Sharma V.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(12) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.8.2010 (Anx.5) which has been separately issued in the name of the petitioner Amit Kumar Sharma (petitioner in CWP No.12640/2010) with reference to his application dated 18.8.2009 and subsequent interview held at Jaipur on 4.3.2010 and he was intimated that his marks have been reduced from 88.84 to 54.89. The petiioner has further prayed to issue the letter of intent as per the marks obtained by him in the interview held on 4.3.2010 for the retail outlet at Village Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu.
(13) In the order dated 12.8.2010 (Anx.5), although the petitioner was empaneled at merit No.1, consequent to display of results, and complaints received from him and 35 other candidates who had appeared for the interview, that they did not get proper marks as per the policy under different parameters. The complaints were investigated and the report submitted by the Investigating Officer / Committee was perused by the competent authority and it was found that there is change in his marks and the marks awarded to him have been reduced from 88.84 to 54.89, therefore, the competent authority has directed to cancel the entire dealer selection proceedings including the cancellation of the empanelment and to conduct fresh interviews of the same eligible candidates who appeared for the interview on 4.3.2010 in the interest of natural justice.
(14) The grievance of the petitioner is that some complaint had been filed against him about the existence of another petrol retail outlet near to the proposed site at Udaipurwati and further that no petrol pump could be allotted if the distance is less than 300 meters from the existing site. The petitioner has further raised the grievance that the respondent HPCL has ignored that the said petrol pump namely M/s. Abhimanyu Filling Station, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu allotted by BPCL in favour of one Smt.Tej Kanwar Shekhawat was already cancelled by the then Prime Minister of India on 6.8.2002 along with several other petrol pumps and against the said order, the Proprietor of the petrol pump approached the Supreme Court where the order of the Prime Minister was upheld on 12.4.2007 therefore, the said petrol pump is completely closed from 12.4.2007 and the licence has already been cancelled by the BPCL. Therefore, the closed petrol pump within 300 meters cannot be equated with the running petrol pump. Had the notice been given to the petitioner, he would have brought this fact to the notice of the HPCL, therefore, reduction of the marks is not only arbitrary but the same is violative of the principles of natural justice.
(15) In this case, the respondent HPCL has filed reply to the writ petition and raised some preliminary objections wherein it has been mentioned that Ishwar Dutt Chaturvedi and Ghanshyam Singh, who being members of the partnership were placed at second position in the merit panel preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4875/2010, which was disposed of at admission stage itself, without issuing any notice, vide order dated 12.4.2010 inter alia directing the respondents to examine the complaint / representation of the said Ishwar Dutt Chaturvedi / Ghanshyam Singh and to pass order. Pursuant to the said order dated 12.4.2010, investigations were made by the Grievance Committee and it was found by the HPCL in the letter dated 9.8.2010 that the land offered by the petitioner first empanelled candidate, was situated at a distance of 66 meters from the BPC outlet; as against the PWD norms stipulating a minimum distance of 300 meters between two filling stations on undivided carriageway and hence, the site of the petitioner will not meet the PWD norms and the site is disqualified. Therefore, his marks were reduced from 88.84 to 54.89 which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.8.2010 (Anx.5).
(16) The petitioner has filed rejoinder and submitted photograph of the petrol pump which according to him clearly reveal closure of the BPCL filling station.
(17) Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to restoration of his position at the merit No.1 and further entitled to issuance of the Letter of Intent.
(18) In this case, interim oder was passed on 29.9.2010 whereby it was directed that fresh process if initiated by respondents for location at Village Udaipurwati (Jhunjhunu) under Open Category for which the petitioner was one of the applicants, pursuant to letter dated 12.8.2010 (Anx.5) shall not be finalised till further orders without seeking prior permission from the Court.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12961/2010 Ishwar Dutt Chaturvedi and Ghanshyam Singh V.HPCL and others (19) By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that the order dated 9.8.2010 so far as it relates to the decision of the respondents for conducting the re-interview of eligible candidates may be quashed and set aside and it may be declared that the petitioners will stand at Sl.No.1 in the merit list and further for a direction to the respondents to allot them the retail outlet dealership at Udaipurwati District Jhunjhunu.
(20) The aforesaid grievance has been raised on the ground that since the marks awarded to the candidate at merit No.1 i.e. Amit Kumar Sharma (petitioner in CWP No.12640/2010) have been reduced from 88.84 to 54.89, thereafter, the present petitioners who stood earlier at Sl.No.2, now stand at merit No.1 and they are entitled to retail outlet. It has also been mentoned in the writ petition that the petitioners at earlier point of time, filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.4875/2010 before this Court which was disposed of on 12.4.2010.
(21) The respondents have filed reply to this writ petition and raised some preliminary objections. On merit, it was submitted that they have rightly decided to re-interview all the eligible candidates as per the guidelines.
(22) The main submission of Mr.Kasliwal in all the aforesaid three writ petitions is that considering the various complaints / representations, on the recommendations of the Grievance Committee, the competent authority rightly decided to hold the re-interviews of all the eligible candidates who appeared in the interview dated 4.3.2010. His further submission is that the HPCL has agreed to hold fresh interview in respect of the retail outlet in question excluding the correspondence held between the complainant and the HPCL and the HPCL will also ignore the orders dated 9/12.8.2010 issued in respect of the respective petitioners. He also submits that as per Clause (?) of the advertisement after the last date for submission of the application, no additional document will be accepted and considered.
(23) I have gone through record of the writ petitions and further considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the parties.
(24) Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to quote the Clause (?) of the advertisement and various orders / interim orders passed in the present litigation and earlier litigation. The same are as under:
Clause (?) of the advertisement "????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ????????, ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ? ??, ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??????"
Interim order dated 9.6.2010 in CWP No. 8210/2010 The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to marks to be awarded for land, the petitioner has under his ownership and to proceed accordingly.
Detailed Order dated 9.8.2010 (Anx.Appl.A-1) in CWP No.8210/2010
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
(A Government of India Enterprise)
Registered Office: 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai 400 020
Tel Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur 302 005
Registered Post
Ref:JRO:RET Date: 9.8.2010
Shri Vijendra Singh,
s/o Shri Sugan Singh,
Vill.& Post: Indrapura
Tehsil: Udaipurwati
Distt.Jhunjhunu PIN 333 307
Sub: Order dated 09/06/2010 in Civil Writ Petition No.
8210/10 passed by Hon'ble High Court by Rajasthan
(Jaipur) Representation dated 17.3.2010.
Dear Sir,
As per above said order dated 09.06.2010 in Civil Writ Petition No.8210/10 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur) investigation has been conducted in line with the provision of Grievance Redressal System of Dealership Selection in respect of Representation dated 17.03.2010 from Shri Vijendra Singh and we wish to advise as follows:
(1) The Investigation Officer has perused the Sale Deed dated 10.8.2009 and Jamabandi (Khatauni) provided by the Petitioner Shri Vijendra Singh and it was found that vide sale deed dt. 10.8.2009, the Petitioner has purchased 0.71 Hectare of land out of a total of 1.42 Hectares ( share) of land under Khasra No.2735. As per the copy of Jamabandi / Khatauni provided by the Petitioner, the said land admeasuring 1.42 Hectare were owned by Shri Dudharam and others and without proper partition, share of the land has been sold to Shri Vijendra Singh as per sale deed dated 10.8.2009.
(2) We have also received other complaints regarding the subject Dealership Selection and these complaints were also investigated as per the provision of Grievance Redressal System of Dealership selection and these complaints are disposed of as follows:
S.No. Name of the complainant Nature of complaint Status Findings on investigation 1 Shri Ishwar Dutt Chaturvedi and Shri Ghanshyam Singh Shekhawat The land Offered by Shri Amit Kumar Sharma is situated on SH-37 and is only 66 meters from BPC outlet as against the norm of 300 meters as per Rajasthan PWD and as such this land should have been disqualified Order dated 12.4.10 in Civil Writ Petition no.4875/10 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur) Found to be true. Marks awarded to Shri Amit Kumar Sharma is reduced to 54.89 from 88.84.2
Shri Ram Devi Saini and 35 others Land offered by Shri Vijendra Singh & suppression of other information Found to be true with respect to land.3
Shri Amit Kumar Sharma Land of Shri Vijendra Singh is unpartitioned Found to be true Under the above facts and circumstances, the representation of Shri Vijendra Singh is rejected and 56.67 marks awarded to him is confirmed. Due to the reason given above, marks awarded to Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, 1st empanelled candidate is reduced to 54.89 from 88.84. As there is change in ranking of merit panel, it has been decided to conduct re-interview of eligible candidates as per the guidelines.
Thanking you, Yours very truly, Sd/- Rajesh Mehtani Sr.Regional Manager Interim order dated 29.9.2010 passed in CWP No. 12640/2010 Counsel inter alia submits that petitioner ws one of applicants who participated for award of retail outlet dealership of HPCL at Village Udaipurwati (Jhunjhunu) and was empanelled at S.No.1 but it appears that on a complaint being received, it was inquired upon by respondents and without affording opportunity of hearing to him, his marks awarded while empanelling him were reduced from 88.84 to 54.89 as is evident from letter dt.12.8.2010 (Anx.5) impugned vide which the selection, itself has been cancelled and the decision has been taken to hold process of selection afresh. Counsel submits that whole procedure adopted by respondent is behind the back of petitioner and is in violation of principles of natural justice.
Issue notice of writ & stay petition alongwith a copy of this order to respondents returnable within six weeks. Notices be given Dasti, if desired. PF & notices be filed within one week, failing which stay order will stand vacated automatically without reference to this Court.
In the meanwhile, fresh process if initiated by respondents for location at village Udaipurwati (Jhunjhunu) under Open category for which petitioner was one of applicants, pursuant to letter dt. 12.8.2010 (Ann.5) shall not be finalised till further orders without seeking prior permission from the Court. List after service.
Order dated 12.4.2010 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4875/2010 Instant petition has been filed by petitioners who are applicants for allotment of retail out let (petrol pump) at Udaipurwati (Jhunjhunu). However, provisional mark-sheet prepared by respondents authority after scrutiny of the forms of candidates, petitioners have been placed at S.No.2 in order of merit. One of the objections raised is that while placing respondent-5 at S.No.1 in order of merit, the selection committee has violated norms for the access for fuel stations, service stations & rest areas along State Highways/ MDR's / ODR's having been laid down by Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan vide Circular dated 27.12.2004 (Ann.2).
Counsel submits that Cl.7.2 of Circular (Ann.2) clearly postulates that minimum distance between two fuel stations alongwith State Highways/MDR's/ODR's would be 300 mtr in case of plain & rolling terrain in Non-Urban (Rural) Areas and as per report submitted by AEN PWD, the distance in case of authority vide representation dt.8.3.2010 (Ann.4). Counsel submits that the matter has not yet been finalised so far and any further action if taken by respondents pending complaint for consideration, certainly it would cause prejudice.
Without going into merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents (competent authority) to examine petitioners' complaint / representations pending with it and pass a speaking order within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the decision may be communicated to the petitioners who if still feel aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law.
(25) Considering the nature of the various interim orders passed in the present writ petitions as also final orders in earlier writ petition, as reproduced above as well as submissions of Mr.Kasliwal that I am of the view that with the change of marking, the merit list has been revised, therefore, holding of the re-interview of the eligible candidates is just, proper and legal. In view of the aforesaid submission of re-interview, non-issuance of show cause notice to Amit Kumar Sharma is now of academic interest, therfore, the same is left open. Only the two submissions are required to be adjudicated upon - (i) Whether reduction of the marks of Amit Kumar is justified and (ii) non-awarding of the marks for the land to the petitioner Vijendra Singh is justified.
(26) Submission of counsel for Amit Kumar Sharma and Vijendra Singh is that Clause (?) has to be construed harmoniously to advance cause of justice and further to prevent injustice particularly in case of situation of closed petrol pump in case of Amit Kumar Sharma which are clarificatory in nature, the land documents which had been submitted along with the original application form by Vijendra Singh which are consequential to the original sale deed submitted along with the application form and the said Clause (?) is not to be interpreted mechanically.
(27) Submission of Mr.Kasliwal, Sr.Advocate appearing for the HPCL is that the document submitted in the writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Sharma could not be considered as the same are of subsequent date to the last date of application as per Clause (?) of the advertisement dated 13.7.2009. Similarly, his submission is that the documents submitted by Vijendra Singh at the time of interview are also of subsequent date to the last date of application, therefore, the same could not be considered as per Clause (?). He further submits that it is immaterial whether the documents are clarificatory in nature or consequential to the original document submitted along with the application.
(28) In case Clause (?) is interpreted in a mechanical manner, as submitted by Mr.Kasliwal, then, if the land stands in the Khata of any applicant and subsequently after the last date of application, the said Khatedari is set aside by the revenue court, then the said fact is having relevant bearing and no marks could be awarded but still the HPCL will award the marks of land and allot petrol pump as per Clause (?), which could not be the intention of the advertisement as well as guidelines for allotment of petrol pump.
(29) As regards case of Amit Kumar Sharma, petitioner in CWP No.12640/2010, the simple situation of BPCL closed petrol pump, which is still closed, will not result in reduction of marks by invoking the PWD norms as the closed petrol pump cannot be equated with the running petrol pump, in respect of which the documents submitted by the petitioner in the writ petition are of clarificatory nature which are required to be considered by adopting just and fair attitude towards the petitioner and situation of the closed BPC petrol pump will have no effect of reduction of the marks of petitioner Amit Kumar.
(30) In case of the petitioner Vijendra Singh (petitioner in CWP No.8210/2010) who has submitted document of land i.e. the sale deed dated 10.8.2009 along with the application form wherein no separate Khasra Number is mentioned and the same has been subsequently specified by giving separate Khasra Number and mutation in revenue record after affecting the partition which were submitted at the time of interview as the same will relate back to the original sale deed submitted along with the application form being consequential in nature. In case of delay on the part of the revenue authorities to make the consequential entries, then the applicant cannot be allowed to suffer, therefore, Clause (?) of the advertisement dated 13.7.2009 is to be construed harmoniously to advance the cause of justice. Since the delayed entries made in the revenue record are consequential to the sale deed dated 10.8.2009 submitted along with the application form which were submitted at the time of interview, the same will relate back to the sale deed dated 10.8.2009, therefore, Vijendra Singh is entitled for consideration of the said document for the purpose of awarding marks at the time of interview.
(31) Both the petitioners Amit Kumar Sharma and Vijendra Singh have been made to suffer in the first interview without there being any fault on their part. In case of Vijendra Singh, the partition and mutation actually took place before 4.3.2010 and the documents were submitted at the time of interview. Even after the issuance of the provisional mark-sheet, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 17.3.2010 which has not been decided as per the aforesaid interpretation of Clause (?) and simply rejected by taking the position as existing on the last date of the application in a mechanical manner. Both the petitioners are entitled for consideration of the said documents which are either clarificatory or consequential to the original document, at the time of re-interview.
(32) For the discussion made hereinabove, and interpretation of Clause (?), I am of the view that the documents which are of clarificatory nature and further consequential relate back to the original document submitted along with the application form and are required to be considered at the time of awarding the marks.
(33) In the result, I pass the following final order:CWP No.8210/2010
Vijendra Singh Vs.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(34) At the time of re-interview, the consequential documents submitted by Vijendra Singh at the time of original interview in relation to the sale deed dated 10.8.2010 which was submitted along with the application form are consequential in nature, therefore, the HPCL is directed to consider the same at the time of re-interview for awarding marks of land;CWP No.12640/2010
Amit Kumar Sharma V. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(35) The documents of closure of the BPC petrol pump are of clarificatory nature, therefore, the same are directed to be considered by the HPCL at the time of re-interview while awarding marks for land;CWP No.12961/2010
Ishwar Dutt Chaturvedi and Ghanshyam Singh Shekhawat Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & others (36) Since I have already held that on account of revision of marks, of the empanelled candidates, re-interview is legal, just and proper, no relief can be granted to the petitioners for allotment of the present site as per the marks of original interview.
(37) In view of the above, all the three writ petitions are disposed of in the manner as indicated above and the respondent HPCL is directed to re-hold interview in the light of the directions issued hereinabove.
(38) Photo stat copies of this order be placed on the files of CWP No.12640/2010 and CWP No.12961/2010.
(Prem Shanker Asopa) J.
??pa?
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed.
Gopal Lal Sharma Private Secretary