Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

and in response to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted a fresh application on 6.9.20 00, which was also acknowledged by the second respondent.

6. On 27.11.2000, the petitioner received a communication from the third respondent, the Oil Selection Board calling upon the petitioner to appear before the third respondent for interview at Hotel Park Inn, No.14, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai, madras-106. In the said call letter the column relating to the date and time of interview has not been filled up and it has been left blank. The petitioner therefore was not aware of the date of interview to appear. The petitioner contacted the first respondent to find out the date and time of interview. The first respondent informed the petitioner that they will be sending a fresh intimation intimating the date, time and venue of Selection. But no such intimation has been sent to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner by registered letter dated 21.12.2000 addressed the first and third respondents complaining the blank communication dated 27.11.2000 and also his contacting the first respondent, who has assured to intimate the date of interview/selection. Though the said complaint has been acknowledged by the first respondent, till date there is no response. The petitioner came to know that the third respondent has made provisional selection. But the same has not been finalised and no orders of appointment has been issued. According to the petitioner the selection by the third respondent is vitiated in that without giving the date, time of the interview the intimation has been sent to the petitioner. The petitioner has caused a reply and despite that the third respondent has proceeded with the interview which has resulted in the deprivation of the petitioner, who could not attend the interview. Such an action and the course adopted by the respondents is contrary to law, violative of Art.14 and discriminatory. Hence the present writ petition.

8. Mr.Gopalan, an officer of the third respondent has also filed an affidavit stating that he had issued call letters to various persons who have applied for the selection in accordance with the instructions of the third respondent. The said Mr.Gopalan also admitted that due to oversight he did not specify the date and time of interview for selection in the call letter issued by him. But he adds that when he was contacted over phone, he had intimated about the date and time of interview.

11. points that arise for consideration in this writ petition are:

(i) Whether the call letter without date and time of interview sent to the petitioner vitiates the selection process and the selection?
(ii) Whether the petitioner was aware of the date and time of interview for the selection conducted by the third respondent-Board?
(iii) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled to?

All the points could be considered together.

13. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the supporting affidavit of Mr.Gopalan are silent as to the date and time on which the petitioner had contacted the said Mr. Gopalan over phone. The petitioner while stating that he has contacted the office of the first respondent, adds that the second respondent has further stated that he was informed that he will be intimated of the date and time of interview for the selection. The said version of the petitioner appears normal as against the statement of Mr. Gopalan. Since the alleged date on which the petitioner contacted Mr. Gopalan has not been set out, it is not possible to accept the same. At any rate, having come to know that the petitioner who has been served with a defective call letter, the respondent had not intimated the date and time of the interview/selection, at least a telegraphic message or a speed post could have been sent about the interview and communicating the date on which the petitioner is required to appear before the third respondent-Board. In the absence of such a telegraph message or speed post, the attempt on the part of the second respondent as well as Mr.Gopalan, stating that the said Mr.Gopalan has intimated about the date and time of interview cannot be accepted, nor it could be sustained, as it is not a normal procedure.