Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 11.12.2001 by which the respondent Board has awarded Retail Out Let dealership of HPCL at Jaipur in favour of the respondent No. 4 Smt. Anju Kataria W/o Shri Manoj Kataria.

2. The petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste community and has passed B.E. (Mechanical) from M.B.M. Engineering College, Jodhpur in the year 1999.

3. An advertisement was issued by HPCL through its Regional Office and same was published in Dainik Bhaskar dated 25.8.2000 through which the applications were invited from Scheduled Castes candidates for Retail Out Let dealership at Jaipur.

8. The Board provided a copy of the Caste certificate of respondent No. 4 to the petitioner. After receiving the copy of the caste certificate the petitioner again submitted a representation on 6.12.2001 and pointed out the discrepency in caste certificate and concealment of fact.

9. Vide letter dated 11.12.2001 which was received by the petitioner on 13.12.2001 the Board informed that complaint of the petitioner against respondent No. 4 has been rejected.

10. Aggrieving and dissatisfied with the order dated 11.12.2001 (Ex. 13) by which the Retail Out Let of HPCL at Jaipur has been awarded in favour of the respondent No. 4, has been challenged on the ground that respondent No. 4 by birth belongs to Meena Tribe and she has married to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. On the basis of marriage the respondent No.4 cannot claim to be treated as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and the, benefit specifically reserved for Scheduled Caste cannot be given to a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste Community. This fact whether a person belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe of a general category or O.B.C. cannot be decided on the basis of marriage and in fact it should be decided by birth.

60. The Chairman of Dealer Selection Board has wrongly rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner and also arrived at wrong conclusion and contrary to the provisions of law as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and wrongly held that respondent No. 4 is a member of Scheduled Castes and awarded Retail Outlet dealership of HPCL at Jaipur in favour of respondent No. 4 Smt. Anju Kataria W/o Manoj Kataria.
61. In view of the aforesaid discussions I deem it proper to cancel the selection and set aside the order dated 11.12.2001 by which the Board has awarded Retail Outlet dealership of HPCL at Jaipur in favour of respondent No. 4.
62. Board is further directed to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law afresh regarding allotment of Retail Outlet dealership of HPCL in favour of the persons who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, ,
63. If the petitioner whose name find place at SI, No. 2 is otherwise found eligible, may be given the Retail Outlet Dealership of HPCL.
64. With these observations writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 11.12.2001 is herewith quashed and set aside. Dealer Selection Board is directed to proceed further in view of the observations made hereinabove regarding allotment of Retail Outlet dealership of HPCL strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.