Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 892 (ORI)

GANGAMATI PATEL v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.

2008-09-26

B.N.MAHAPATRA, I.M.QUDDUSI

body2008
JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the selection of Rajeswari Patel (O.P. No.3) as the first empanelled candidate under Annexure 9 dated 15.12.2006 issued by Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Sambalpur Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation (O.P. No.2) for Kishan Seba Kendra (hereinafter referred to as "KSK") at Bhukta in the district of Bargarh. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the opposite party No.1- Senior Divisional Manager (Retail Sales), Bhubaneswar Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation) in order to provide diesel, lubricant etc. to the farmers in rural areas made an advertisement in Oriya daily "The Sambad" dated 26.11.2005 inviting applications from the candidates interested to be appointed as Operators in KSK in 80 different locations in the State of Orissa. In the said advertisement, various eligibility criteria were stipulated. Serial No. 2 of the said advertisement provides the eligibility criteria, according to which an applicant should be the resident of the concerned district. Serial No.7 provides the mode of selection, which specifically states that as per the following parameters the Selection Committee would assess the value of eligible candidates. (a) Capabilty to provide land and infrastructure 20 (b) Capability to provide finance 25 (c) Educational qualification 15 (d) Capability to generate business 10 (e) Age 4 (f) Experience 4 (g) Business ability 5 (h) Personality 6 Total Marks 85 Minimum qualifying marks for the candidates 60% The petitioner along with other four intending candidates made applications for appointment as Operator/Dealer of KSK in Bhukta in the district of Bargarh. After scrutiny of applications, three candidates including the present petitioner and opposite party No.3 were found suitable to be called for interview for appointment as Operator/Dealer of concerned KSK. Accordingly, the opposite party No.2-Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.), Sambalpur Sales Office issued letter dated 25.01.2006 informing all the candidates that land Selection Committee would visit the proposed places on 04.02.2006 for evaluation of lands which were offered for installation of retail outlet by the petitioner and opposite party No.3. Pursuant to said letter, the land Selection Committee visited the spot on the scheduled date in the presence of the petitioner and opposite party No.3. Pursuant to said letter, the land Selection Committee visited the spot on the scheduled date in the presence of the petitioner and opposite party No.3. His further case is that opposite party No.2 vide his letter dated 30.01.2006 (Annexure-4) intimated the petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee for interview at 10.00 AM on 15.02.2006 in Hotel 'Saket', VSS Marg, Ashoka Talkies Road, Sambalpur. The petitioner was also informed to bring all the original documents along with enclosures as stipulated in the application form sent by the petitioner to the Corporation. The date of interview was subsequently postponed to 17.03.2006. The interview was held on the extended schedule date. Again vide letter dated 15.04.2006 the petitioner was requested to appear before the Selection Committee for re-interview on dated 08.05.2006 with original documents, copies of which were enclosed to the application form at Bhubaneswar Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 3rd Floor, Aloke Bharti Building, Saheed Nagar. The final mark awarded by the Selection Committee to the petitioner as well as opposite party No.3 on different criteria was communicated through internet on 02.06.2006, the details of which are enclosed to the writ petition as Annexure-8. According to the mark sheet out of a total marks of 85, the petitioner secured 55.7 and opposite party No.3 secured 52.5. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has submitted the financial statement showing fixed deposit of Rs.16,40,000/- purchased in the name of petitioner as well as her close relatives and fixed assets of her father, husband and brother amounting to Rs.60, 92,250 / - in the form of land, building, agricultural land etc., but the Selection Committee most illegally awarded zero mark for fixed assets. The opposite party No.3, on the other hand, was awarded 4 out of 4 marks. Subsequently, the opposite party No.1 vide its letter dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure-9) intimated the petitioner that after investigation of the complaint dated 09.06.2006 and re-assessment of marks Smt. Rajeswari Patel has been declared as first empanelled candidate. The statement of performance of the candidates after re-evaluation of marks for the KSK location at Bhukta in the district of Bargarh has been displayed on the notice board of Sambalpur Divisional Office. 3. Mr. N.K.Sahu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the opposite parties 1 and 2 illegally and arbitrarily selected opposite party No.3 as first empanelled candidate. 3. Mr. N.K.Sahu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the opposite parties 1 and 2 illegally and arbitrarily selected opposite party No.3 as first empanelled candidate. The land Selection Committee on the basis of complaint lodged by opposite party No.3 on 09.06.2006, i.e., after interview, enhanced 4.1 marks for land and infrastructure behind the back of the petitioner violating the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement. He further submitted that in view of the conditions stipulated in advertisement opposite parties 1 and 2 are not justified in their action by entertaining a subsequent complaint from opposite party No.3 after declaring the result in the website on 02.06.2006 that the petitioner was the first empanelled candidate. This action of opposite parties was against principles of safeguarding the interest of the general public by the public authorities. On that ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and selection of opposite party No.3 is liable to be quashed. He also submitted that the settled position of law is' that where the power has been given to do certain thing in certain way, the authority must exercise that power in that way or not at all, and any other method of performance is necessarily forbidden. According to him, in view of the aforesaid legal position of law since in the advertisement it has been clearly stipulated that no further documents should be entertained or to be taken into consideration after the date of application, the acceptance of complaint of opposite party No.3 for consideration after declaration of result is clearly contrary to law and, for such action of opposite parties 1 and 2, the public authorities, deserves to be condemned. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions: i) Sangeeta Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ii) Hukam Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, iii) Hira Cement Workers Union Vs. State of Orissa and others, Learned counsel further argued that opposite parties are not justified in awarding extra marks to opposite party No.3 and declaring her as the first empanelled candidate without giving due notice to the petitioner. He assailed that this action of opposite parties 1 and 2 is violative of principles of natural justice. State of Orissa and others, Learned counsel further argued that opposite parties are not justified in awarding extra marks to opposite party No.3 and declaring her as the first empanelled candidate without giving due notice to the petitioner. He assailed that this action of opposite parties 1 and 2 is violative of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that in "support of title to the land, the opposite party No.3 furnished photocopy of unregistered sale deed and photocopy of purported money receipts which cannot be accepted as conveyance of full title in favour of opposite party No.3. On the other hand, the petitioner has submitted Record-of Right in respect of land measuring Ac. 0.40 decimals standing in the name of her mother which is a corner plot adjoining to R.D. road along with an affidavit of her mother relinquishing the property in favour of the petitioner. The land verification committee, interview committee, State level scrutiny committee as well as the state head by making a comparison of the existing documents in support of the title to the land offered by the respective candidates have awarded 13.6 marks to the present petitioner and 12.4 marks to opposite party No.3. The learned counsel further submitted that selection of opposite party No.3 as first empanelled candidate has been made by back-door method violating the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that law is well settled that while exercising power under Article 226, the High Court is to find out whether the decision making process was proceeded on the basis of principles of law, reasonableness, and that the principles of natural justice was duly complied with. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions: (i) A.K. Kraipak and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (ii) Maa Mangala Construction, Paradip Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another, He further submitted that on a bare reading of Section 52 of the Indian Registration Act, it is abundantly cleared that power is conferred on registering authority to grant receipt in proof of presentation of a document for registration only. Therefore, granting of receipt u/s 52(b) of the Act cannot be treated as document for conveyance of title. Therefore, granting of receipt u/s 52(b) of the Act cannot be treated as document for conveyance of title. He further submitted that it is the settled position of law that where a question arises with regard to passing of title in favour of any person, the primary requirement is to see the recitals of the registered documents. In absence of production of sale deed alleged to have been registered in favour of opposite party No.3, the awarding of marks categorizing opposite party No.3 as the title holder of the land is contrary to the settled position of law. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are not justified to award zero mark to the petitioner and four marks to opposite party No.3 in respect of fixed asset and fixed deposit. Concluding his argument he submitted that declaration of opposite party No.3 as the first empanelled candidate deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.3 strenuously argued that there is no irregularity in selecting opposite party No.3 as first empanelled candidate for KSK in respect of Bhukta, Prakashpur in the district of Bargarh. He submitted that though the advertisement stipulates the broad nature of marks to be allocated under different heads, the details regarding the said marks and how they are to be given in the interview along with various parameters have been prescribed in paragraph 16.1.1 of the brochure. The learned counsel further submitted that it cannot be said that in the advertisement there was no condition for reevaluation of marks in the event of any complaint lodged by the intending applicant for reevaluation of marks. On the contrary, in the advertisement, it is clearly stipulated that details regarding the selection of the retail dealership, have been fully described in the brochure and it can be obtained from office on payment of Rs.501- and also can be downloaded from website-www.ioc.com. It is further submitted that the brochure contains the provisions for lodging of complaint and process of selection which is a part of the advertisement. In paragraph 16.1.1 of the brochure for selection of petrol and diesel outlet dealership published on 01.11.2004, 20 marks have been clearly earmarked for persons having clear title to the land with registered sale deed and 15 marks for persons having agreement to purchase land. In paragraph 16.1.1 of the brochure for selection of petrol and diesel outlet dealership published on 01.11.2004, 20 marks have been clearly earmarked for persons having clear title to the land with registered sale deed and 15 marks for persons having agreement to purchase land. According to him, the petitioner does not have any land in her own name whereas the opposite party No.3 has her own land and in spite of that the petitioner was allotted 13.6 marks and opposite party No.3 was allotted 12.3 marks. Thus, opposite party No.3 after looking at the result of the interview published on 02.06.2006 through the internet, immediately on 07.06.2006 brought it to the notice of the Manager of the Corporation at Sambalpur requesting for reevaluation of her marks. Pointing out the said irregularities, opposite party No.3 again on 09.06.2006 made representation to Senior Manager (Sales) of the Corporation along with registered sale deed and sketch map of the land and photocopy of the mark sheet. On the even date, a similar representation was also submitted to Deputy General Manager of the Corporation at Bhubaneswar. On receipt of such representation, a personal hearing was given to opposite party No.3 on 25.07.2006 in the office of the Divisional Manager of the Corporation at Sambalpur. Thereafter, opposite parties 1 and 2 reevaluated the land owned by opposite party No.3 and gave her 16.5 marks. He further submitted that due to change in the marks on the basis of reevaluation of land opposite party No.3 was selected as the first empanelled candidate in place of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner's marks having not undergone any change after such reevaluation, the petitioner cannot make complaint of any violation of principles of natural justice. Reevaluation was only made in respect of the land owned by opposite party No.3 on a genuine complaint, and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are well within their own right to rectify any error made in the process of awarding marks during interview. Learned counsel further submitted that there being an error in awarding marks in respect of opposite party No.3, authorities have every right to rectify the error even without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, Mr. Mohanty relied on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vividh Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Learned counsel further submitted that there being an error in awarding marks in respect of opposite party No.3, authorities have every right to rectify the error even without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, Mr. Mohanty relied on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vividh Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (2007) 6 VST 267 (SC) and Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd Vs. Haridas and Another, . His further case is that the advertisement itself stipulates that in respect of the documents and certificates, only copies are to be attached to the application and original of such documents and certificates are to be produced at the time of interview if called for. Opposite Party No.3 having presented the original registered sale deed standing in her name at the time of interview conducted on 17.03.2006 and 08.05.2006, there was no apparent reason as to how she could secure less mark than the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that opposite party No.3 has fixed and immovable assets in her own name whereas in case of the petitioner, the fixed assets belong to her husband and father. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner regarding non-awarding of marks, so far as it relates to financial capacity of the petitioner, is not tenable. He further submitted that on the basis of the solvency certificate and evaluation report given by the approved Valuer of the Corporation, 4 marks were given to opposite party No.3 out of total 4 marks. 5. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 stated that opposite parties 1 and 2 have not committed any illegality in selecting opposite party No.3 as the first empanelled candidate for KSK at Bhukta in the district of Bargarh. He submitted that the Corporation is a Government Undertaking registered under the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, engaged in the business of sale and distribution of petroleum products throughout the country by engaging dealers and distributors. According to the learned counsel, on 17.03.2006 the interview was held at Sambalpur for all the three eligible candidates, but the result was 'withheld as per the circular dated 07.04.2005 since the difference of marks between 1st and the 2nd candidate was less than 5%. On 08.05.2006, re-interview was held at Bhubaneswar for the 1st and 2nd empanelled candidates. According to the learned counsel, on 17.03.2006 the interview was held at Sambalpur for all the three eligible candidates, but the result was 'withheld as per the circular dated 07.04.2005 since the difference of marks between 1st and the 2nd candidate was less than 5%. On 08.05.2006, re-interview was held at Bhubaneswar for the 1st and 2nd empanelled candidates. On 02.06.2006, the result was published where the petitioner stood first and the opposite party No.3 stood second. Thereafter, opposite party No.3 lodged a complaint to the Deputy General manager, Orissa State Office, who is the State head of the Corporation, vide letter dated 09.06.2009 requesting reevaluation of marks in respect of land offered for KSK, Bhukta (Prakashpur) location. In response to the complaint of opposite party. No.3, the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation vide letter dated 21.06.2006 directed for investigation of the matter pertaining to the above complaint as per the policy circular dated 11.02.2004. On 25.07.2006, personal hearing of the complainant took place at Sambalpur Divisional Office of the Corporation and the investigation report to that effect was submitted to the DGM on 22.08.2006. On 30.11.2006, the reevaluation of marks of the complainant was made at Sambalpur and revised mark sheet was published, where opposite party No.3 was declared first empanelled candidate and the petitioner as the second empanelled candidate. On 15.12.2006, the result was communicated to both the candidates. On 29.12.2006, Letter of Intent was issued to opposite party No.3 as the first empanelled candidate and on 14.02.2007 "No Objection Certificate" was issued by the Addl. District Magistrate, Bargarh for putting up a new KSK retail outlet. According to learned counsel, the selection procedure for Bhukta location, Prakashpur, was made in accordance with the provisions of selection policy for KSK Operatorship. He further submitted that there is no violation of policy conditions since the reassessment of marks was done basing on the documents submitted by the applicant on 27.12.2005 and no additional documents were added/deleted after that date. He further submitted that as per the prevailing policy/circular dated 20.04.2005 (Annexure M/1) for selection of KSK Operatorship if an applicant owns land, then the evaluation of the land will be done out of maximum 20 marks and, if an applicant is having firm offer, the same land will be evaluated out of maximum marks 15. He further submitted that as per the prevailing policy/circular dated 20.04.2005 (Annexure M/1) for selection of KSK Operatorship if an applicant owns land, then the evaluation of the land will be done out of maximum 20 marks and, if an applicant is having firm offer, the same land will be evaluated out of maximum marks 15. The petitioner has offered the land having firm offer and opposite party No.3 offered the land after she acquired the land by virtue of registered sale deed which she produced at the time of interview held on 17.03.2006 and 08.05.2006. However, the selection committee by overlooking granted 12.4 marks to opposite party No.3 although she has acquired title over the land whereas the petitioner secured 13.6 marks without having clear title over the land. Therefore, on the complaint of opposite party No.3, the DGM, Orissa State Office advised for reassessment of marks of opposite party No.3. After re-assessment of marks, opposite party No.3 became the first empanelled candidate. He also submitted that question of personal hearing of the petitioner does not arise since Smt. Rajeswari Patel (opposite party No.3) had requested for reassessment of her marks. The marks awarded to the petitioner by the interview committee have neither been changed nor has he asked for reassessment of the marks. He further submitted that the Selection Committee awarded marks as per prevailing guideline of the Corporation dated 28.06.2004 wherein it is stated that candidates shall be eligible for marks under the head 'fixed assets' if the fixed assets are only in the name of the applicant, spouse and un-married children. As proof of possession of the property, the applicant must submit valid documents like sale deed, patta etc. along with valuation of the said property by Government registered Valuer. However, the petitioner in her application did not submit the required documents but she has submitted the cost of fixed assets of her husband and brother without any proper documentary backup, and hence she secured no marks whereas opposite party No.3 has fixed assets and commercial building standing in her name, and therefore, she secured full 4 marks. Finally, it is submitted that the petitioner has no right to harass a Public Sector Oil Company and stand on the way of development of KSK Operatorship depriving the local people specifically farmers from their much awaited facility, and hence the writ petition should be dismissed. Finally, it is submitted that the petitioner has no right to harass a Public Sector Oil Company and stand on the way of development of KSK Operatorship depriving the local people specifically farmers from their much awaited facility, and hence the writ petition should be dismissed. The learned counsel relied upon some decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. In view of the rival contentions of the respective parties, the following questions fall for consideration by this Court:- (i) Whether entertaining the complaint from opposite party No.3 is in accordance with or contrary to the conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 26.11.2005? (ii) Whether opposite parties 1 and 2 are justified in their action by entertaining the complaint from opposite party No.3 subsequent to publication of the result in the website on 02.06.2006 declaring the petitioner to be the first empanelled candidate and opposite party No.3 as second? (iii) Whether opposite parties 1 and 2 are justified in entertaining the complaint of opposite party No.3 and declaring her as first empanelled candidate by awarding more marks without giving notice to the petitioner and such action of opposite parties 1 and 2 is to be considered as violative of principles of natural justice? (iv) Whether opposite parties 1 and 2 are justified in treating opposite party No.3 as the rightful owner of the land offered by her for operator j dealer of KSK in Bhukta on the basis of the registered sale deed she produced at the time of interview although a photocopy of the unregistered sale deed and receipt issued by the registering authority u/s 52 of the Registration Act were furnished along with the application? (v) Whether the opposite parties 1 and 2 are justified in awarding zero mark to the petitioner in respect of fixed deposit and fixed assets? 7. So far as the first question is concerned, it is not in dispute that the result was declared in the website on 02.06.2006. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entertained complaint from opposite party.No.3 in respect of the marks awarded to her for the land offered by her for KSK after declaration of result on 02.06.2006. Considering such complaint, opposite parties 1 and 2 declared opposite party No.3 as the first empanelled candidate. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entertained complaint from opposite party.No.3 in respect of the marks awarded to her for the land offered by her for KSK after declaration of result on 02.06.2006. Considering such complaint, opposite parties 1 and 2 declared opposite party No.3 as the first empanelled candidate. The question arises whether the advertisement dated 26.11.2005 published in newspaper inviting applications for KSK at Bhukta contains any condition for lodging of complaint after the result is declared. According to the petitioner, the advertisement does not contain any such condition and the opposite parties 1 and 2 acted contrary to the procedure contained in the advertisement which is forbidden in law. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this High Court: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangeeta Singh's case (supra) held that it is the well settled principle of law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision or a stipulated condition which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. Similar IS the position for conditions stipulated In advertisements. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hukam Chand's case (supra) held that it is well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is of a drastic nature and its exercise in a mode other than the one provided will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. In Hira Cement Workers Union's case (supra), this Court held that where a power has been given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all, and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. In this context, the provision contained in the advertisement IS very much relevant. In the advertisement, it was clearly stipulated/ stated that the details regarding selection of the retail dealership have been fully described in the brochure, which can be obtained from the office on payment of Rs.50/- and also can be downloaded from website, i.e., www.ioc.com. In this context, the provision contained in the advertisement IS very much relevant. In the advertisement, it was clearly stipulated/ stated that the details regarding selection of the retail dealership have been fully described in the brochure, which can be obtained from the office on payment of Rs.50/- and also can be downloaded from website, i.e., www.ioc.com. A copy of the said brochure has been submitted by opposite party No.3. In paragraph 6.1 of the brochure, the norms of valuation have been described. Paragraph 18.2 of the brochure itself contains the provision for lodging of complaint. In paragraph 18.2.2 it has been clearly laid down that, in case of established complaint, action will be taken with regard to appointment of the next candidate in the merit panel. For ready reference, paragraphs 18, 18.1 and 18.2 of the said brochure are reproduced herein below. "18. An aggrieved person may send his/her complaint to IOC at the address of the customer service cell displayed at the nearest retail outlet of IOC. Complaints can also be lodged on the website of IOC. (i) Anonymous/pseudonymous complaints will not be investigated. (ii) On receipt of a complaint a letter will be sent by IOC to the complainant through Registered Post, asking him to submit details of allegation with a view to prima facie substantiate the allegations along with supporting documents, if any, within 30 days. Response of the complainant will be examined by IOC and if it is found that the complaint does not have specific and verifiable allegations, the same will be filed. 18.1 The complainant will be clearly advised that the complaint will be examined by IOC and if it is established that the complaint does not have any substance, the same will be liable for legal action. 18.2 When a decision is taken to investigate the complaint, the investigation will be done by one Senior Officer. Thereafter, decision on the complaint will be taken as under:- 18.2.1 Complaints not substantiated: The complaint will be filed and the complainant will be advised accordingly. 18.2.2 Established complaint Action will be taken with regard to appointment of the next candidate in the merit panel. Thus, as per the above provisions any aggrieved person is eligible to lodge complaint and, in case of an established complaint, action will be taken with regard to appointment of the next candidate in the merit panel. 18.2.2 Established complaint Action will be taken with regard to appointment of the next candidate in the merit panel. Thus, as per the above provisions any aggrieved person is eligible to lodge complaint and, in case of an established complaint, action will be taken with regard to appointment of the next candidate in the merit panel. The question arises whether, in absence of such a condition in the advertisement published in the newspaper, any complaint can be entertained on the basis of the guidelines provided in the brochure. It is needless to say that a selection procedure may contain various criteria. It is not possible to advertise/mention all the criteria in the advertisement published in newspaper. At the same time, the intending candidates should not also be kept in dark regarding the procedure followed by the Corporation in selecting the candidates for KSK. In the advertisement dated 26.11.2005, it was clearly stated that the details regarding the selection of the retail dealership have been fully described in the brochure, which can be obtained from the office on payment of Rs.50 / - and can also be downloaded from the website www.ioc.com. Thus, in terms of the advertisement, brochure which gives detailed description of selection procedure, inter alia, providing for lodging of complaint, is a part of the advertisement and, therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite parties have not followed the procedure of selection contained in the advertisement. The case laws cited by the petitioner do not render any assistance to her. In that view of the matter, the contentions of the petitioner to the effect that in absence of any stipulation in the advertisement regarding entertain ability of any complaint, opposite parties 1 and 2 committed error in entertaining complaint from opposite party No.3 does not hold good. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are justified in entertaining complaint from opposite party No.3 in respect of land owned by her which she offered for dealership of KSK. 8. Now, the second question arises as to whether any complaint can be entertained subsequent to publication of the result in the website. It goes without saying that the question of lodging of any complaint regarding selection of dealership of KSK will only arise after declaration of the result. No cause of action shall arise for lodging of any complaint prior to declaration of the result. It goes without saying that the question of lodging of any complaint regarding selection of dealership of KSK will only arise after declaration of the result. No cause of action shall arise for lodging of any complaint prior to declaration of the result. In the present case, when the opposite party No.3 came to know her result in the website on 02.06.2006 that she was awarded less mark than the petitioner in respect of the land she offered for dealership even though the same stood in her name and the land offered by the petitioner for the said dealership did not stand in her name, she lodged a complaint. Therefore, lodging of complaint arose only after the declaration of result on 02.06.2006 and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are justified in their action by entertaining complaint of opposite party No.3 subsequent to publication of the result. 9. The third question arises as to whether the opposite parties 1 and 2 are justified in declaring opposite party No.3 as the first empanelled candidate entertaining her complaint without giving due notice to the petitioner and the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. In support of her complaint, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak's case (supra) and the decision of this Court in Maa Mangala Construction's case (supra). In A.K. Kraipack's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the dividing line between an administrative power and quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated. In recent years, the concept of quasi-judicial power has been undergoing a radical change. What was considered as administrative power some years back is now being considered as quasi-judicial power. Arriving at just decision is the aim of both the quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. The principles of natural justice are applied to both. This Court in Maa Mangala Construction's case (supra) held that State action must not be arbitrary, but must be based on some rational and relevant principle, which is non-discriminatory, it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration since that would be denial of equality. The principles of natural justice are applied to both. This Court in Maa Mangala Construction's case (supra) held that State action must not be arbitrary, but must be based on some rational and relevant principle, which is non-discriminatory, it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration since that would be denial of equality. While exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has to find out whether the decision making process has proceeded on the basis of principle of law, reasonableness and the principle of natural justice was duly complied with, whether the action of the State or the public authority was done in safe-guarding and with due regard to the public interest, whether the State or the public authority granted equal treatment and made a fair play in the whole of transaction, whether the State or the public authority acted mala fide in dealing with the subject and whether deviation, if any, made is illegal or irregular. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vividh Marbles' case (supra). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the statutory authorities are entitled to rectify their mistakes. When such mistakes are apparent on the face of the record, even no opportunity of hearing was necessary. The other decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel is Maharashtra State Seed Corporation's case (supra). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: An administrative order can be recalled. A mistake can be rectified. The Managing Director of the Corporation as a disciplinary authority did not lack inherent jurisdiction in relation thereto. The High Court proceeded on the basis that in the absence of the specific provision the second show-cause notice was impermissible. It failed to consider that there was no statutory interdict in this behalf. The disciplinary authority might have committed a mistake in issuing the first show cause notice but by reason thereof he cannot be held to be wholly precluded from issuing a second show-cause notice as thereby he intended to rectify the mistake committed by him. Mistake furthermore, may either be of law or fact. By reason of mistake on the part of the enquiry officer, the respondent could not have been inflicted with a minor penalty although he deserved a major penalty. Mistake furthermore, may either be of law or fact. By reason of mistake on the part of the enquiry officer, the respondent could not have been inflicted with a minor penalty although he deserved a major penalty. As the enquiry officer had no jurisdiction to recommend any punishment to be imposed on the respondent by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority although acted thereupon at the first instance, could have corrected his mistake as the same was apparent on the face of the record. He, therefore, did not commit any illegality in issuing the second show-cause notice. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation relied upon some decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it is basically held that the persons merely selected for the post do not thereby acquire a right to be appointed to such post. In Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ordinarily the notification merely amount to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. In The State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others it is held that the competitive examination is for the purpose of showing that a particular candidate is eligible for consideration. Selection for appointment comes later; it is open then for the Government to decide how many appointments shall be made. The mere fact that the candidate's name appeared in the list does not entitled him to be appointed. In Jatinder Kumar and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others it is held that the process for selection and selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipated vacancy does not create a right to be appointed to the post which can be enforced by a mandamus. A similar view has been taken in Vinodan T. and Others Vs. University of Calicut and Others, wherein it is held that persons merely selected for the post do not thereby acquire a right to be appointed to such post is well established by judicial precedent even if vacancy exists it is open to the concerned authority to decide how many appointment should be made. University of Calicut and Others, wherein it is held that persons merely selected for the post do not thereby acquire a right to be appointed to such post is well established by judicial precedent even if vacancy exists it is open to the concerned authority to decide how many appointment should be made. However, the selected candidates have a right to compel such authority (i) not to make appointments by travelling outside the list and (ii) to make a selection for appointment strictly in the order the candidates have been placed in the list. In Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that whenever vacancy exists persons who are in the merit list per force have to be appointed. Much would depend upon the statutory provisions governing the field. In the case at hand, the petitioner has not lodged any complaint in respect of the awarding of marks to her under different heads. It is only the opposite party No.3 who has lodged complaint with regard to awarding of less marks to her in respect of the land owned by her. In that circumstance, opposite parties 1 and 2 offered opportunity of hearing to the complainant-opposite party No.3 to consider her complaint. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have not changed the marks awarded to the petitioner under different heads. In that situation, there is no reason to give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise. The brochure which contains the procedure of selection in detail which is also a part of the advertisement does not provide for hearing to other participating candidates while investigating into a complaint of any aggrieved person. Therefore, the opposite parties have not committed any illegality in entertaining the complaint of opposite party No.3 and considering her grievance without giving notice to the petitioner and this action of opposite parties 1 and 2 does not amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K.Kraipak's case (supra) and this Court in Maa Managala Construction's case (supra) are of no help to the petitioner. 10. In the circumstances, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K.Kraipak's case (supra) and this Court in Maa Managala Construction's case (supra) are of no help to the petitioner. 10. The fourth question relates to the grievance of the petitioner that the opposite parties 1 and 2 should not have treated the opposite party No.3 as lawful owner of the land in respect of which she submitted the photocopy of the unregistered sale deed and receipt issued by the registering authority u/s 52 of the Registration Act along with the application for appointment as operator/dealer of KSK in Bhukta, Bargarh. In Column-'Cha' of Clause 10 of the advertisement, it is stipulated that in respect of all documents and certificates only copies are to be attached to the application and original of such documents and certificates are to be brought at the time of interview if called for. Opposite party No.3 presented original registered sale deed at the time of interview conducted by opposite parties 1 and 2 on 17.03.2006 in Hotel Suket, Sambalpur and on 08.05.2006 before Divisional Office, Bhubaneswar as stated by her in her answer to question No.6 (Annexure G/l). In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No.3, it is stated that on 09.06.2006, opposite party No.3 made representation to Senior Manager (Sales), along with registered sale deed and sketch map of the land. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties 1 and 2, it is stated that petitioner offered the land having firm offer and opposite party No.3 offered the land after she acquired title over the land by virtue of registered sale deed. The averments made in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No.3 and the statements made in paragraph 11 of the counter; affidavit filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 have not be been specifically denied by the petitioner by producing any cogent material. It is nobody's case that the recitals and contents of the registered sale deed are in any way different from the copy of the sale deed annexed e application form. In that view of the matter, opposite parties 1 and 2 have not committed any error in holding opposite party No.3 as the rightful owner of the land in question. 11. In that view of the matter, opposite parties 1 and 2 have not committed any error in holding opposite party No.3 as the rightful owner of the land in question. 11. Next question is whether the opposite parties 1 and 2 are justified in awarding zero mark to the petitioner in respect of fixed deposit and fixed assets. In paragraph 18 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that she has submitted the documents including valuation of land, building etc. and a list of financial statement showing the total valuation of the fixed assets of the petitioner as well as her close relatives amounting to Rs.60,92,250/-. In paragraph 14 of the counter, opposite parties 1 and 2 stated that the Selection Committee has awarded marks as per the prevailing guideline, where it is stated that the candidates shall be eligible for marks under the head 'fixed assets' if the said fixed assets is only in the name of applicants, spouse and unmarried children. In the instant case, the petitioner in her application did not submit the required document and, as per her own admission, she submitted the cost of fixed assets of her husband and brother without any proper documental backup. Hence, she secured no mark whereas the opposite party No.3 submitted the fixed assets and commercial building standing in her name for which she secured full 4 marks. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has not clarified as to who are the close relatives and details about the documental backup. Apart from this, the petitioner has never raised any complaint against awarding of zero mark in respect of fixed deposit and assets before opposite parties 1 and 2. Thus, the opposite parties 1 and 2 have not committed any error in awarding zero mark to the petitioner in respect of fixed deposit and assets. 12. In view of the above, opposite parties 1 and 2 are fully justified in selecting opposite party No.3 as first empanelled candidate under Annexure-9 for operation of KSK at Bhukta in the district of Bargarh. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without any cost. I.M. Quddusi, J. 14. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed