Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 442 (PAT)

Vijay Yadav v. Dealer Selection Board

2006-05-09

AFTAB ALAM, REKHA KUMARI

body2006
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. There is a single appellant in each of the three analogous appeals. All of them had filed separate writ petitions challenging the grant of retail outlet dealership of Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Daudnagar, district Aurangabad in favour of one Jayant Kumar Thakur who is the common respondent in all the three appeals. A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by a common judgment and order, dated 01.12.2003. These three internal court appeals are preferred against that judgment. 2. The dealership in question is described as company owned and company operated. This means that all the investment in setting up the retail outlet is made by the Oil Company and the dealer selected for it simply manages it and earns his commission on the sales. 3. The eventual grant of dealership to Jayant Kumar Thakur passed through many twists and turns and in order to take into account all the relevant facts and circumstances one may as well begin from the beginning. 4. An advertisement for grant of a number of dealerships by the Indian Oil Company Limited, including the dealership in question, was issued on 1.9.2000. The three appellants besides Jayant Kumar Thakur and several others made applications for the dealership at Daudnagar. Interview letters were issued to the candidates on 9.12.2001 asking them to appear for interview on January 10 and 11, 2002. On the first day, the interviews were held normally but in the afternoon of the second day (11.1.2002) when two candidates remained to appear before the selection board, the proceedings were interrupted by the forcible intrusion of an unruly ruffian, armed with a pistol. He was at the head of a group of 15-20 people, who were waiting outside the office. In those circumstances it became impossible for the Selection Board to continue its proceedings and the interview of the remaining two candidates was postponed to 28.1.2002, having regard to the availability of the administrative member on the Selection Board. Since the interview of all the candidates could not be completed, the Dealer Selection Board was unable to issue the list of the selected candidate(s) on that day, as laid down under the guidelines for selection. 5. Since the interview of all the candidates could not be completed, the Dealer Selection Board was unable to issue the list of the selected candidate(s) on that day, as laid down under the guidelines for selection. 5. On 15.1.2002 Jayant Kumar Thakur sent a representation to the Minister, Petroleum & Natural Gas making the allegation that the Dealer Selection Board did not issue the list of selected candidates and postponed the interview to 28.1.2002 under some influence and in order to accommodate two candidates. It was alleged that their applications were incomplete on the date fixed for interview and their interviews were postponed possibly in order to favour them. 6. On 28.1.2002 the dealer Selection Board met once again and took the interviews of the two remaining candidates, namely, Vijay Sharma and Upendra Sharma. Neither of them was able to find place in the select list. Thus, all the allegations levelled by Jayant Kumar Thakur concerning those two candidates and most of the criticisms made by two of the appellants in the present appeals against the postponment of interviews fall to the ground. On completion of interviews on 28.1.2002 the Selection Board issued the list of three selected candidates in order of merit. At the first place was Ajay Kumar (appellant in L.P.A. No. 4 of 2004), at the second place Jayant Kumar Thakur (who finally got the letter of intent and who is respondent in all the three appeals) and at the third place was Laxmi Prasad (appellant in L.P.A. No. 1 of 2004). 7. On 29.1.2002 Jayant Kumar Thakur sent another complaint to the Minister, this time, materially changing his ground. In the second complaint it was alleged that the interviews were postponed under the influence of two local Members of Parliament in order to help and accommodate Ajay Kumar. It was stated that the postponment was intended to allow him to furnish the papers that were wanting in his application on the previous dates. 8. In the second complaint it was alleged that the interviews were postponed under the influence of two local Members of Parliament in order to help and accommodate Ajay Kumar. It was stated that the postponment was intended to allow him to furnish the papers that were wanting in his application on the previous dates. 8. At the same time the selection of Ajay Kumar as the first candidate was challenged before this Court in (i) CWJC No. 2163/2002 filed (on 5.2.2002) by Jayant Kumar Thakur, (ii) CWJC No. 2208/2002 filed (on 7.2.2002) by Vijay Yadav (who did not find a place in the select panel) and (iii) CWJC No. 2514 of 2002 filed (on 14.2.2002) by Laxmi Prasad who was placed at serial No. 3 in the select list. On 20.2.2002 notices were directed to be issued in all the three cases to the selected candidate Ajay Kumar and the other respondents and a learned single Judge passed an interim order expressly leaving it open to the Union of India, Petroleum Department to hold an enquiry into the selection process. It was further directed that the Letter of Intent should not be issued to Ajay Kumar in case it was not issued in his favour till then. 9. It appears that on the complaints filed by Jayant Kumar Thakur, the matter was referred for enquiry to the Director, Anti Adulteration Cell, (A.A.C. for short). On 22.7.2002 the counsel appearing for the Union of India informed the court that the Director (A.A.C.) had recommended either for cancellation of the selection or for fresh interview and the matter was awaiting a decision by the Government. The counsel for Ajay Kumar submitted that the enquiry was held without giving him any opportunity of hearing. The Court simply noted the statements made before it and adjourned the case with a direction to the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum to take a final decision on the enquiry report before the case was next listed. 10. In the mean while there was another development. A declaration was made by the Prime Ministers office that all dealerships with regard to petroleum, kerosene oil and L.P.G. granted after the year 2000 would be cancelled. Taking note of the declaration the court held that all the three writ petitions had practically become infructuous and no further proceeding was necessary in those cases. A declaration was made by the Prime Ministers office that all dealerships with regard to petroleum, kerosene oil and L.P.G. granted after the year 2000 would be cancelled. Taking note of the declaration the court held that all the three writ petitions had practically become infructuous and no further proceeding was necessary in those cases. All the three writ petitions were accordingly disposed of by order, dated 13.8.2002. 11. The order, dated 9.8.2002 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in light of the P.M.Os declaration was struck down by the Supreme Court by judgment and order dated 20.12.2002 in Onkar Lal Bajaj and Ors. V/s. Union of India (2003) 2 S.C.C. 673 . Thus, the dispute again revived and two of the parties once again came to this Court. Vijay Yadav (who did not find a place in the panel) filed CWJC No. 1670/2003 (on 4.2.2003) praying that no Letter of Intent be issued in favour of Ajay Kumar. On 11.2.2003 Laxmi Prasad (at No. 3 in the select list) filed CWJC No. 1613/2003 challenging the panel in so far as Ajay Kumar and Jayant Kumar Thakur were placed above him. Counsel for the appellants in the three appeals submitted here that it was highly suggestive that though in the enquiry report submitted by the Director (A.A.C.) on 27.6.2002 it was recommended either to cancel the selection of Ajay Kumar or to hold fresh interviews and the final decision in his favour came full five months later, Jayant Kumar Thakur did not join the other two in the second round before the court and no writ petition was filed on his behalf. 12. The two writ petitions were listed on 30.4.2003 before one of us (Aftab Alam, J) sitting singly. On that date the counsel for the Union of India stated that the Govt. was likely to take a final decision on the recommendation of the Director (A.A.C.) within four weeks. Counsel for Ajay Kumar (one of the respondents in the two cases) stated that the enquiry by the Director (A.A.C) was made without giving an opportunity to his client to show cause and in light of the statement made before it the court recorded the following order: ...At this stage Mr. Counsel for Ajay Kumar (one of the respondents in the two cases) stated that the enquiry by the Director (A.A.C) was made without giving an opportunity to his client to show cause and in light of the statement made before it the court recorded the following order: ...At this stage Mr. Naveen Sinha representing respondent No. 5 stated that the report of the Director General, Adulteration Cell was based on an enquiry in which his client was not afforded opportunity to show cause or participation by any other means. It is expected that the concerned authority in the Petroleum Ministry must also bear in mind this aspect of the matter. 13. Following the courts observation Ajay Kumar received a notice, dated 4.6.2003 from the Director (A.A.C.) enclosing copies of the two complaints by Jayant Kumar Thakur and asking him to appear for personal hearing on 13.6.2003. On the date fixed in the notice the Director (A.A.C.) heard Ajay Kumar and gave his report on 16.6.2003 reiterating his earlier recommendation. 14. Finally the Director, Ministry of Petroleum passed an order on 9.7.2003 cancelling the selection of Ajay Kumar and directing that the Letter of Intent for the dealership be given to the next candidate (Jayant Kumar Thakur) in the select list. The order of the Director referred to the two enquiry reports submitted by the Director (A.A.C.) (the first one after listening to the complainant Jayant Kumar Thakur and the second after giving a hearing to Ajay Kumar) and noted that in the enquiry it was found that the postponement of the interviews from January 11 to January 28, 2002 was not unjustified. The order further took note of certain other facts that came to light from result of the enquiry reports and stated as follows: However it has been observed from the D.S.B. records that Shri Ajay Kumar, the selected candidate, is only matriculate with no business experience at all and his financial position is also not very sound. The complainant, is also the second-empanelled candidate, is academically more qualified. Further, most of the remaining candidates are also better qualified than the selected candidate and some of them also possess business experience. It is apparent that the Chairman of the DSB showed undue bias in favour of Shri Ajay Kumar for no justifiable reasons. 15. The complainant, is also the second-empanelled candidate, is academically more qualified. Further, most of the remaining candidates are also better qualified than the selected candidate and some of them also possess business experience. It is apparent that the Chairman of the DSB showed undue bias in favour of Shri Ajay Kumar for no justifiable reasons. 15. Having thus noted the finding of the enquiry the Director passed the following order: In view of the position indicated above and in consideration of the reports of the Director General, anti-Adulteration Cell, it has been decided that the selection of Shri Ajay Kumar for the retail out-let dealership at Daudnagar, Distt. Aurangabad, Bihar be cancelled and the letter of intent for this dealership be issued to the next candidate in the panel. 16. In view of the order, dated 9.7.2003 amendment petitions were filed in the pending writs (CWJC No. 1613/2003 filed by laxmi Prasad and CWJC No. 1670/2003 by Vijay Yadav) seeking to challenge the decision to grant the dealership to Jayant Kumar Thakur. Almost simulataneously Ajay Kumar also joined the fray and he too came to this Court in CWJC No. 7161/2003 challenging the order, dated 9.7.2003 by which his selection as the first candidate was cancelled and the dealership was given to Jayant Kumar Thakur. 17. All the three writ petitions were heard together and as noted earlier were dismissed by judgment and order, dated 1.12.2003 from which the three appeals arise. 18. The appellants in L.P.A.No. 1/2004 (Laxmi Prasad) are represented by Mr. Mrigank Mauli and Mr. G.P. Singh respectively. Their submissions were mostly confined to the issue of postponment of the interviews by the Dealer Selection Board from January 11 to January 28, 2002. Mr. Mauli referred to paras 3.5.5 and 3.5.6 of the Guide-lines for Selection of Retail Outlets Dealers that provide that the nomination of an officer of the Oil Company as a member of the Selection Board will be made not earlier than twenty four hours from the date fixed for starting the interview at a particular location and that a member so nominated will continue for not more than a week. Mr. Mr. Mauli submitted that the postponment of the interview was for a period of more than a week and hence, the nominated officer ceased to be a member of the Board on January 28 and the final selection was, thus, made by a Board that was not competent under the guide lines. He also referred to para 3.9.2 that provides that as far as possible interviews should be fixed continuously for five days at a particular location and submitted that this clause of the guide lines was also not followed by the Selection Board. 19. Learned Counsel contended that the guide-lines had the force of law and the provisions of paras 3.5.5 and 3.5.6 were mandatory in nature. In support of the submission learned Counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme court in Indra Sawhney V/s. Union of India - and in M.C. Mehta V/s. Union of India (2000) 4 SCC 356. He further submitted that the Union of India had also taken the same stand in its counter affidavit filed before the writ court. 20. Mr. G.P. Singh similarly submitted that under the guide-lines the whole selection process was required to be completed within the specified number of days but the Selection Board did not pay any heed to the time schedule laid down in the guide-lines and further postponed the interviews with the result that the final select list was issued far beyond the period fixed by the guide-lines. Referring to para 3.13.1 learned Counsel submitted that the selection of candidate should be completed in not more 129 days from the date of the issuance of the advertisement and the letter of intent should be issued to the selected candidate within 145 days of the issuance of the advertisement. In the present case the select panel was issued by the Board after 515 days of the issuance of the advertisement. The failure of the Dealer Selection Board to adhere to the time schedule as laid down under para 3.13.1 completely vitiated the selection process and no dealership could be granted on that basis. He also referred to para 3.12.2 of the guidelines. 21. Mr. The failure of the Dealer Selection Board to adhere to the time schedule as laid down under para 3.13.1 completely vitiated the selection process and no dealership could be granted on that basis. He also referred to para 3.12.2 of the guidelines. 21. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation submitted that the failure to strictly follow the guide-lines with regard to the time schedule or with regard to the period of nomination of the officer of the Oil Company on the Selection Board would not affect the final selection since those provisions were only directory in nature. In support of his submission he relied upon a number of Supreme court decisions in J.R. Raghupathy V/s. State of A.P. - and in M.M. Services Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Metcalf & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. 2005 (3) PLJR 97 (SC) and in Sterling Computers Limited V/s. M & N Publications Limited -. 22. A more effective reply to the objection raised by the counsel in the two appeals came from Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate appearing for Jayant Kumar Thakur, the common respondent in all the three appeals. And in view of the submission made by Mr. Giri there appears to be no need to go into the question as to the nature and character of the guide-lines. Mr. Giri pointed out that para 3.13.1 of the guide-lines required that interview letters should be issued to the candidates within 120 days of the date of the advertisement and the selection completed within 129 days and the letter of intent issued within 145 days. In this case, however, the interview letters were issued long after the expiry of 145 days. Nevertheless, all the candidates, including the three appellants took part in the interview and the objection with regard to the time-schedule was being raised only after they failed to get selected as the first candidate. 23. Mr. In this case, however, the interview letters were issued long after the expiry of 145 days. Nevertheless, all the candidates, including the three appellants took part in the interview and the objection with regard to the time-schedule was being raised only after they failed to get selected as the first candidate. 23. Mr. Giri also submitted that a parliamentary committee was constituted for the review and evaluation of guide-lines and in its report, dated December 20, 2001 the parliamentary committee observed that the time frame (under para 3.13.1) was not practicable at all and in most of the cases, the letter of intent (LOI) was not issued where results were finalised more than six months back; further, that the committee felt that the time-frame was absolutely impractical and should be suitably reviewed to avoid any scope of litigation over this provision. 24. Mr. Giri further submitted that when the interviews were postponed on January 11, 2002, only two candidates remained to appear before the Board. They, however, did not find a place in the final select list and hence, all objections with regard to the postponment of interviews became totally irrelevant. Further, the Director (A.A.C.) who held the enquiry in the matter also came to the view that the postponment was quite justified. 25. I find substance in the submissions of Mr. Giri and I am of the view that the selection process or the grant of dealership on that basis cannot be held to be bad for reasons advanced by the appellants in LPA Nos. 1 of 2004 and 1208 of 2003. 26. This takes us to the more substantial objections raised on behalf of Ajay Kumar who was selected as the first candidate by the Dealer Selection Board but whose selection was later cancelled by the Central Govt. by order, dated 9.7.2003 passed by the Director (M.O.P.). Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, counsel appearing in LPA No. 4/2004 submitted that a notice was issued on 4.6.2003 asking Ajay Kumar to appear in the enquiry long after the Director (A.A.C.) had submitted his (first) report on 27.6.2002 and had fully made up his mind on the issue. It was, thus, a case of post - decisional hearing that was not sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice. In support of the submission he relied upon a decision of the Supreme court in H.L. Trehan V/s. Union of India. 27. Mr. It was, thus, a case of post - decisional hearing that was not sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice. In support of the submission he relied upon a decision of the Supreme court in H.L. Trehan V/s. Union of India. 27. Mr. Sinha next submitted that along with the show cause notice Ajay Kumar was supplied copies of the two complaints, dated 15.1.2002 and 29.1.2002 filed by Jayant Kumar Thakur. In the first complaint it was alleged that the interviews were postponed to accommodate two candidates Vijay Kumar Sharma and Upendra Kumar Sharma. In the second complaint the complainant materially changed his ground and alleged that the interviews were postponed in order to enable Ajay Kumar to complete his papers submitted before the Board. Ajay Kumar submitted his show cause meeting the allegations made in the two complaints. The Director (A.A.C.) found that there was no substance in the complaints with regard to the postponment of interviews, yet proceeded to hold that the Chairman of the Board showed undue bias in favour of Ajay Kumar for no justifiable reason. Learned Counsel submitted that the finding of the enquiry officer was beyond the allegations in the two complaints and thus, it was beyond his brief. In support of the submission he relied upon a decision of the Supreme court in Tarlochan Dev Sharma V/s. State of Punjab -. 28. Mr. Sinha also submitted that the anti adulteration cell could only make an enquiry into the allegations made by the complainant but what it did was plainly a review of the selection made by the Dealer Selection Board and a fresh appraisal of the candidates. This was completely beyond the authority of the anti adulteration cell and any order passed by the Central Government on the basis of that enquiry report was, therefore, bad and illegal. In support of the submission he relied upon a decision in Durga Devi V/s. State of H.P. 29. Learned Counsel also submitted that a perusal of the second report submitted by the enquiry officer would show that there was no consideration of his show cause and non-consideration of show cause filed by Ajay Kumar violated the enquiry. In support of the decision he relied upon a decision in Madhusudan Paswan V/s. The State of Bihar 1989 PLJR 157 (paras 9 and 10). 30. Unlike the objections raised by the other two appellants, Mr. In support of the decision he relied upon a decision in Madhusudan Paswan V/s. The State of Bihar 1989 PLJR 157 (paras 9 and 10). 30. Unlike the objections raised by the other two appellants, Mr. Giri did not try to frontly meet the submissions made on behalf of the third appellant Ajay Kumar. In stead, he raised his own objections with regard to the maintainability of the three writ petitions and the appeals arising from there. He submitted that CWJC No. 16703/2003 (by Vijay Yadav) was filed seeking a mandamus to the Central Govt. to take a decision on the basis of the enquiry report. It, thus, became infructuous on 9.7.2003 when the Government took the decision to cancel the selection of Ajay Kumar and to give the dealership to Jayant Kumar Thakur. Similarly, CWJC No. 1613/2003 (by laxmi Prasad) made the same prayer in para 1 (D) of the petition and, therefore, that writ case too became infructuous for the same reason. The submission over-looks that in both cases amendment petitions were filed seeking to modify the relief(s) and to challenge the Government order directing for the issuance of the letter of intent to Jayant Kumar Thakur. In any event the third writ petition in the batch, CWJC No. 7161/2003 was filed by Ajay kumar who was directly aggrieved by the Central Government order, dated 9.7.2003, and who prayed for its quashing as one of the main reliefs in his petition. 31. Mr. Giri next submitted that none of the three writ petitioners-appellants was a bona-fide candidate for the dealership. He alleged that they were set-up by a group controlled by one Onkarmal Khemka who had a number of dealerships in the district in different names. In support of the allegation he invited the courts attention to Annexures A/5 and A/6 to the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 1670/2003. The two documents are copies of returns filed by an establishment called M/s. Onkarmal Baijnath under the provisions of the Bihar Shops & Establishment Act showing one Vijay Yadav as one of its employees. The documents were received in the office of the Supdt. of Labour, Aurangabad on 30.8.2001. He also invited our attention to Annexure A/7 to the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 7161/2003. The documents were received in the office of the Supdt. of Labour, Aurangabad on 30.8.2001. He also invited our attention to Annexure A/7 to the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 7161/2003. It is a copy of the service card of an employee of the name Ajay Kumar issued by Om Service Station under Rule 12A of the Bihar Shops & Establishment Rules. The card was apparently issued in March, 2001 showing that the concerned person was in employment from 1.4.1999. In respect of Ajay Kumar Mr. Giri in particular laid great emphasis on the statements made in paras 19 to 21 of the counter affidavit filed by his client in CWJC No. 7161/2003. These paras contain allegations that some highly influential people including members of parliament (whose names are stated in the counter affidavit) were sponsoring him. It is further alleged that around the time the selection interviews were held those people had talked to the Chairman of the Dealer Selection Board a number of times on mobile phones. 32. Mr. Giri sought to make it appear before the court that his client was putting up an independent and lone fight against a strong cartle that controlled the grant of dealerships in the district of Aurangabad. He contended that since the three petitioners were dummies set up by people acting behind the scene, they had no right to challenge the grant of dealership to his client and their writ petitions and appeals arising there from were fit to be rejected summarily. 33. I am not impressed by the submission. The documents relied upon by Mr. Giri may suggest that Vijay Yadav and Ajay Kumar were employees at petrol pumps controlled by Onkarmal at the time they made applications for the grant of dealership in question but there is no material to suggest that their applications were at the behest of someone else. There is no bar that a person employed at a petrol pump may not apply and get the dealership of some other out-let in his independent capacity. 34. Moreover, if the three candidates, namely, Ajay Kumar, Laxmi Prasad and Vijay Yadav were set up by the same group, there would be no occasion for the other two to challenge the grant of dealership in favour of Ajay Kumar as was the case in the first round of litigation before the court. 35. 34. Moreover, if the three candidates, namely, Ajay Kumar, Laxmi Prasad and Vijay Yadav were set up by the same group, there would be no occasion for the other two to challenge the grant of dealership in favour of Ajay Kumar as was the case in the first round of litigation before the court. 35. In reply to the submission made on behalf of Ajay Kumar by Mr. Sinha that the Director (A.A.C.) exceeded his brief by extending the enquiry beyond the allegations made by Jyant Kumar Thakur with regard to the postponement of interviews and that the Director in effect sat in appeal over the selection made by the Dealer Selection Board Mr. Giri submitted that if on going through the records of the Dealer Selection Board some patent irregularity came to light it was the duty of the enquiry officer to point it out to the Central Government. He further submitted that the finding by the Director (A.A.C.) that the Chairman of the Dealer Selection Board was unduly biased in favour of Ajay Kumar only vindicated the case of his client that he was sponsored by highly influential people, including some members of parliament and his selection as the first candidate was made under their influence. 36. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it would be necessary to find out what came to light in the enquiry that attracted the serious charge of bias against the Chairman of the Dealer Selection Board. The pronouncement that the Chairman was unduly biased in favour of Ajay Kumar is to be found in the first report, dated 27.6.2002 itself. The reason to arrive at the finding was stated in the report as follows: From the D.S.B. reports the following observations are worth consideration. Shri Ajay Kumar, the selected candidate is only matriculate with no business experience at all and his financial position is also not very sound. He has no income of his own and his father has a salary income of Rs. 45,000.00 per annum. He has not indicated any source of funding except that he would arrange loan from the bank. The complainant and second empanelled candidate Shri Jayant Kumar Thakur is M.A., engaged in agriculture and has an income of Rs. 50,000.00 from agriculture. Most of remaining candidates are also better qualified than Shri Ajay Kumar. Some of them also have business experience. He has not indicated any source of funding except that he would arrange loan from the bank. The complainant and second empanelled candidate Shri Jayant Kumar Thakur is M.A., engaged in agriculture and has an income of Rs. 50,000.00 from agriculture. Most of remaining candidates are also better qualified than Shri Ajay Kumar. Some of them also have business experience. Inspite of the apparent lack of merits on the part of Shri Ajay Kumar he got selected only by virtue of very high marks awarded by the Chairman. While Member-I awarded only 35 marks out of 65 to Shri Ajay Kumar, Chairman has given 67 marks out of 130. The corresponding marks given to Shri Jayant Kumar Thakur are 45 and 52. There are several other candidates who were given higher marks by Member-I and these marks are commensurate with the qualifications given in the application forms. 37. In light of the above observations and his finding that the Chairman was unduly biased in favour of Ajay Kumar, the Director General (A.A.C.) recommended that either the selection of Shri Ajay Kumar may be cancelled or interviews may be held afresh. One may feel that in the circumstances the prudent course would have been to scrap the entire selection process and to issue fresh advertisement but the Central Govt. chose the other course. Justifying its action in directing the dealership to be given to Jayant Kumar Thakur, the Union of India took the stand that apart from bias shown by the Chairman of the Selection Board in favour of Ajay Kumar, there was no other irregularity in the selection process and hence, it was decided to take a course in which the innocent might not suffer. In para 15 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India in CWJC No. 1613/2003 it was stated as follows: It is further clarified that bias was found only as regards the selection of the first empanelled candidate Shri Ajay Kumar and not the entire selection process and in view of this legal position and following the principles of equality, equity and natural justice, the other innocent impanelled candidates should not be made to suffer by cancelling the entire merit list and going for the selection process afresh. 38. 38. The certainty expressed in the above passage appears to be quite misplaced as it seems that at least one other candidate was also badly wronged by applying the same yard stick as adopted by the Director (A.C.C.) to stigmatise the Chairman with the charge of harbouring bias in favour of Ajay Kumar. 39. On our request Mr. Ajay Tripathi, S.C.C.G. submitted before us the qualifications of the three listed candidates and the marks allotted to them by the Chairman and the Administrative Member. Mr. Tripathi presented before the court the relevant details in the following tabular form: CHAIRMAN Personality Capability Education General TOTAL FINAL Business to arrange & general Assess- MARKS MARKS ability finance Intelli- ment. C+M gence TOTAL (40) (30) (4) (20) (130) (195) Ajay Kumar 20 25 12 10 67 102 Jyant Thakur 12 16 14 10 52 97 Laxmi Prasad 30 10 10 10 59 95 MEMBER (20) (15) (20) (10) (65) Ajay Kumar 10 8 12 5 35 Jayant Thakur 10 10 17 8 45 Laxmi Prasad 12 5 13 6 36 Ajay Kumar Matric 2nd Income Fathers Div. pension 45,000 Jayant Thakur M.A. 50,000 Self Laxmi Prasad B.Sc. 79,811 self + Wife 68, 115 Income Tax Payee 40 From the above it is evident that atleast under the heads of Education and General Intelligence and Capability to Arrange Finance Laxmi Prasad was treated badly by the Chairman and even worse by the Administrative Member. 41. The materials before the court are very limited and the court does not have the advantage of the candidates appearing before it in person: I shall therefore consider it quite rash to record the serious charge of bias against the Selection Board. But the point that needs to be emphasised is that marks allotted to Laxmi Prasad both by the Chairman and the Administrative Member particularly under the heads of Education and General Intelligence and Capapibility to Arrange Finance appear to be wholly unreasonable for exactly the same reason as given by the enquiry officer for holding that the Chairman was biased in favour of Ajay Kumar. 42. It may be noted that this position emerges on comparison of the three empanelled candidates. The qualifications and the marks given to the other candidates are not before the court and therefore the much larger picture that may finally take shape is not known. 42. It may be noted that this position emerges on comparison of the three empanelled candidates. The qualifications and the marks given to the other candidates are not before the court and therefore the much larger picture that may finally take shape is not known. But one thing that is clear from a comparison of the three selected candidates is that there is absolutely no substance in the averment made by the Central Govt. that apart from the bias shown by the Chairman in favour of Ajay Kumar, there was no other irregularity in the selection process. Hence, the only reasonable course was to cancel the entire select list. 43. From a perusal of the judgment under appeal it is evident that the writ court did not call for and examine the enquiry report by the Director (A.A.C.) on which the impugned decision of the Central Government was based. The writ court, therefore, failed to see that the reason given by the enquiry officer to hold that the Boards Chairman showed undue bias in favour of Ajay Kumar applied with equal force with regard to the marks allotted to the third candidate. 44. For the reasons discussed above I have no hesitation in quashing the order of the Central Government, dated 9.7.2003 as well as the select list dated 28.1.2002 issued by the Dealer Selection Board. All consequential actions on the basis of that order and that select list naturally fall to the ground. The respondent Oil Company is directed to cancel the dealership granted to Jayant Kumar Thakur and to issue a fresh advertisement for the grant of dealership. 45. In the result the judgment and order coming under appeal are set aside; the appeals and the writ petitions succeed and are allowed though for reasons different from those advanced on behalf of Vijay Yadav and Laxmi Prasad in their respective cases. There will be no order as to costs. 46. Rekha Kumari, J. I agree.