Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 599 (PNJ)

Neena Goyal v. Indian Oil Corporation

2011-02-16

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2011
JUDGMENT AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - By this order, I propose to dispose of four civil writ petitions i.e. C.W.P.Nos.2977, 4555, 4701 and 7211 of 2009 as the petitioners in these writ petitions are applicants for allotment of Indane L.P.G. Distributorship at Chunni, District Fatehgarh Sahib, reserved for open women (Rural) category in response to an advertisement dated 18.9.2006. 2. In C.W.P.No.2977 of 2009, the petitioner submits that she had submitted her application, complete in all respects, in November, 2006. She received letter dated 10.2.2009 from the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) intimating her that she had not submitted her proof of date of birth along with the application form. Responding, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 16.2.2009 that she had enclosed her Matriculation Certificate issued by the Punjab School Education Board but as it did not mention the date of birth, she had enclosed other documents in proof of her date of birth, such as, the attested photocopies of Permanent Account Number issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, Income Tax Return, LIC Surrender Value Quotation Certificate issued by the Sr. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chandigarh. However, to her surprise, she received a communication dated 19.02x.2009 from the respondent-Corporation intimating her that only Matriculation/SSC Certificate indicating date of birth is accepted as a proof of date of birth and any other proof of date of birth is not acceptable. This, it was stated, was based on column No.1(f) of the application format as advertised in The Tribune dated 18.9.2006. Aggrieved by rejection of her application form and non-receipt of the interview for selection for distributorship of Indane LPG, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition upon which notice of motion was issued on 26.2.2009 with an interim direction to the respondent-Corporation to allow the petitioner to participate in the interview on 28.2.2009 onwards as a provisional measure. Such consideration was subject to the ultimate decision of the writ petition. The petitioner was interviewed and on evaluation, as per the criteria adopted by the Selection Committee, was granted 87.07 marks and was placed at Sr.No.1 in the provisional merit list. 3. The objection raised by the respondent-Corporation with regard to the candidature of the petitioner is that the Matriculation Certificate attached by the petitioner along with the application does not contain the date of birth. 3. The objection raised by the respondent-Corporation with regard to the candidature of the petitioner is that the Matriculation Certificate attached by the petitioner along with the application does not contain the date of birth. As per column 1(f) of the application format, the candidate has to enclose an attested copy of the Matriculation or Secondary School Certificate indicating the date of birth along with the application form. As no other document is admissible except the one which has been mentioned in column No.1 (f) i.e. Matriculation or Secondary School Certificate indicating the date of birth, the other documents attached with the application could not be taken into consideration for determining the date of birth. As per clause 13 (h) of the guidelines for selection of dealership/distributorship, applications which are incomplete in any respect will not be considered and no correspondence was to be entertained whatsoever by the Corporation. Clause 13 (g) further provides that no additional document whatsoever will be accepted or considered after the cut off date for submission of the application. On this ground, thus, the application of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Corporation. 4. It has further been stated that the eligibility conditions envisaged in the advertisement have to be strictly complied with and there can be no deviation from the same. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dharam Pal Kansal vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another, 2008 (3) RCR Civil 654 as also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.11315 of 2008 titled as Jagdip Singh vs. Indian Oil Corporation and another, decided on 19.8.2008. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the requirement as per column No.1 (f) of the application format was basically to give the date of birth of the applicant and the age of the applicant on the date of application. In support of this, the applicant was required to submit attested copy of Matriculation/SSC Certificate. The primary aim was to know whether the applicant fulfilled the eligibility criteria as spelt out in column 2 of the advertisement i.e. the applicant should not be less than 21 years of age as on the date of application. In support of this, the applicant was required to submit attested copy of Matriculation/SSC Certificate. The primary aim was to know whether the applicant fulfilled the eligibility criteria as spelt out in column 2 of the advertisement i.e. the applicant should not be less than 21 years of age as on the date of application. It is not disputed that the petitioner had attached other document in support of the date of birth and non-consideration of the same merely on the ground that the application form required the Matriculation/SSC Certificate in support of the date of birth is totally unjustified. 6. Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, on the other hand, submits that as per the application format for the allotment of dealership given in the advertisement published in the newspaper, the requirements of the application have to be strictly complied with. Although the petitioner had submitted the Matriculation Certificate yet since it did not contain the date of birth, therefore, her application could not be considered for appointment as dealer of INDANE (LPG) distributorship. On this basis, he contends that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he has pressed hard on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CWP No.10351 of 2008 Jagdip Singh's case (supra) which was a case of non-submission of date of birth certificate at the time of filing the application leading to the rejection of the candidature and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 8. In the advertisement dated 18.09.2006, Column No. 2 deals with the common eligibility for all categories which reads as follows:- “2. Common eligibility for all categories : Applicant should (a) be an Indian by Nationality (b) not be less than 21 years of age on the date of application (c) be Minimum Matriculate or recognised equivalent (not applicable to OSP category) (d) be Resident of India (e) fulfil Multiple dealership/distributorship norm (f) be having sound physical and mental health. Xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx” Column 1(f) of the application format for INDANE (LPG) Distributorship reads as follows:- “1. Xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx” Column 1(f) of the application format for INDANE (LPG) Distributorship reads as follows:- “1. Individual : (Enclosed Affidavit as per Annexure 'A') (a) to (e) xxxx xxxx xxxx (f) Date of Birth : ____ Day _____ Month _____ Year Age on the date of Application ___ Years ___ Months ____ Days. (Enclosed attested copy of Matriculation/SSC Certificate)” 9. Although the application format provides for the Matriculation/SSC Certificate in proof of the date of birth but it is not in dispute that along with the application form, the petitioner did attach the Matriculation Certificate dated 26.6.1986 (Annexure P-6) issued by Punjab School Education Board but the same did not mention her date of birth. However, in support of her date of birth, she had mentioned in the application that she had attached attested copies of the Permanent Account Number Card issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, the Income Tax Return and the LIC Surrender Value Quotation Certificate issued by the Sr. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh which clearly depicted her date of birth as 31.7.1971. The factum with regard to the attachment of these documents along with the application form has not been disputed by the respondent-Corporation. What has been asserted for rejecting the application of the petitioner is that except the Matriculation/SSC Certificate, no other document in support of the date of birth can be considered which, in my considered view, is totally misconceived. What actually is required for eligibility as per Column No.2 (b) of the advertisement is that an applicant should not be less than 21 years of age on the date of application. It is in this context when in column No.1 (f) the date of birth on the date of application has to be filled in by the applicant, document in proof thereof is to be attached. Unfortunately, for the petitioner, the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Punjab School Education Board does not mention her date of birth which cannot be the basis for disentitling her the right of consideration for allotment of dealership. The petitioner had submitted the Matriculation Certificate and had also submitted other documents in proof of her date of birth, which when taken into consideration show that she was more than 21 years of age on the date of submission of her application. The petitioner had submitted the Matriculation Certificate and had also submitted other documents in proof of her date of birth, which when taken into consideration show that she was more than 21 years of age on the date of submission of her application. No doubt, two documents have been mentioned which are required to be attached with the application in support of the age of the applicant but the intention primarily being to ascertain the age of the applicant to determine the eligibility, does not disentitle a candidate from consideration if the document so required is not containing the said information especially when the said document has been issued by the competent Authority on which the applicant has no control and has been issued as per the rules and regulations governing that institute. The petitioner cannot be, thus, held ineligible nor can she be held disentitled to the right of consideration for allotment of a dealership. 10. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent in Jagdip Singh's case (supra) indicates that the petitioner in that writ petition did not submit proof of his age along with the application. He submitted his Matriculation Certificate after the last date of submission of the application and that Certificate also did not contain the date of birth. Further, there was a specific clause in the guidelines for selection that the incomplete applications would not be entertained and that no additional document will be accepted or considered after the cut off date for submission of application. In those circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court had rejected the claim of the petitioner whereas in the present case, the petitioner had along with her Matriculation Certificate submitted other documents in proof of her date of birth. 11. The other writ petitions have been filed by the candidates whose applications were found to be in order but have been placed lower in merit than the petitioner in C.W.P.No.2977 of 2009 in the provisional merit list. They have asserted that they were entitled to more marks than given and would be higher in merit if granted the marks as claimed by them. 12. It is the contention of the petitioner in C.W.P.No.4555 of 2009 that petitioners No.1 and 2, who had applied jointly as a partnership, were not assigned the marks to which they were entitled to. 12. It is the contention of the petitioner in C.W.P.No.4555 of 2009 that petitioners No.1 and 2, who had applied jointly as a partnership, were not assigned the marks to which they were entitled to. It has been contended that no mark was given to petitioner No.1 Anita Sood in the category of her experience while she was entitled to 4 marks and petitioner No.2-Harminder Kaur has only been granted 33 marks while she was entitled to 35 marks in the category of 'capability to provide finance', when both the petitioners jointly had shown the capability of finance of about Rs.30 lacs. It has been pleaded that in case 4 marks are granted to petitioner No.1 on account of her experience and petitioner No.2 is awarded 2 more marks in the category of capability to provide finance, their total marks would add up to 89.13 which would be above the marks obtained by Neena Goyal, petitioner in CWP No.2977 of 2009 who has obtained 87.07 marks. 13. In response thereto, the Corporation has submitted that the marks have been correctly awarded to the petitioners as per the policy guidelines. Anita Sood-petitioner No.1 has been awarded zero mark under the head 'Experience' as the experience certificate attached with the application was undated and she did not enclose any salary certificate/slip issued by the employer as mandated under the advertisement format column No.8. As regards petitioner No.2, it has been submitted that the parameter “capability to provide finance”, as per the policy has been correctly awarded to her. As per the sub head income, petitioner No.2 who had intimated that her total family income is Rs.1,32,000 per annum, has been granted 3 marks out of total 5 marks. 14. No replication has been filed by the petitioner and in view of the reply filed by the respondent which has to be accepted in the absence of any counter-dispute having been raised by the petitioner. The marks assigned to the petitioners are fully justified based upon the criteria laid down by the Corporation as also the policy formulated and followed uniformly in all cases. There is, thus, no merit in the present writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 15. The marks assigned to the petitioners are fully justified based upon the criteria laid down by the Corporation as also the policy formulated and followed uniformly in all cases. There is, thus, no merit in the present writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 15. In C.W.P.No.7211 of 2009, Manpreet-petitioner has claimed that she has not been allotted any marks under the head 'capability to provide infrastructure' whereas she is entitled to 35 marks under this head. She has been granted total 55.42 marks, by adding the above 35 marks thereto, she would be entitled to get 90.42 marks. Since she has further claimed 4 marks for experience, the total marks would, thus, be 94.42. She claims 25 marks on the basis of a lease deed for possessing a site for godown for storage of filled LPG cylinders and 10 marks for having a showroom, which she had hired. She contends that as per clause 8.1 of the Brochure for selection of LPG Distributors at page No.13, the dimensions of the plot should be 27 m. x 26.15 m which comes to 706.05 sq. metres. The dimensions of the plot of the petitioner are 62.05 m x 20.42 meters which comes to 1267.06 sq. meters which is much larger than the required area, thereby entitling her to 25 marks. The showroom which the petitioner has hired, has a dimension of 12 ft. x 19 ft. which is more than the required area which is 3 m x 4.5 m. The required area of the showroom is 150 sq. feet whereas the area of the showroom the petitioner has hired is 225 sq. feet, for which she should get 10 marks, thus, she would be entitled to 35 marks. 16. In response to the plea raised by the petitioner, the Corporation has submitted that the capability to provide land, infrastructure facilities and godowns mandates a minimum specified size of the godowns, land and the showroom. As per the site plan attached by the writ petitioner with her application, the size of the godown land is 203 ft, 6 inch x 67 ft. whereas the minimum area required for godown land as per column No.12-a (page no.3) of the application/advertised format is 27 m x 26.15 m which works out to 88.58 ft x 85.79 ft. As per the site plan attached by the writ petitioner with her application, the size of the godown land is 203 ft, 6 inch x 67 ft. whereas the minimum area required for godown land as per column No.12-a (page no.3) of the application/advertised format is 27 m x 26.15 m which works out to 88.58 ft x 85.79 ft. As the breadth of the godown land is less than the minimum specification, she has rightly been awarded zero marks. Further, the dimensions of the godown land are not mentioned in the lease deed dated 16.10.2006 attached with the application by the petitioner. As regards the dimension of the showroom, the lease deed dated 19.10.2006 does not mention the same. However, the minimum requirement for showroom land as per column No.12-b (Page No.4) of the application/advertised format is 3 m x 4.5 m where again the dimensions are not fulfilled as far as the breadth is concerned, thus, entitling her to no marks under this head also. The marks claimed under the head 'experience' also has rightly not been granted to her as the experience certificate attached by her did not contain along with it the details of the salary slip issued by the employer. 17. No replication has been filed by the petitioner. However, Mr. Bal, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per column 8.1 of the Brochure, it is only the capability to provide land and infrastructure facilities which has to be assessed and since the petitioner was possessing the required area although not the specified minimum dimensions, the petitioner should have been granted the marks as claimed by her under this head. However, I am unable to accept this contention of the counsel for the petitioner. The minimum dimensions with regard to the area, length and the breadth has been specified in the advertisement/application which has to be strictly complied with for grant of marks under that particular head. As the petitioner does not fulfill the said requirement, she has rightly not been granted the marks which she has claimed in the present writ petition. Thus, the writ petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 18. In CWP No.4701 of 2009, the petitioner has asserted that she has been granted total 81.43 marks but she is entitled to 6.4 more marks under the head 'financial capability'. Thus, the writ petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 18. In CWP No.4701 of 2009, the petitioner has asserted that she has been granted total 81.43 marks but she is entitled to 6.4 more marks under the head 'financial capability'. She contends that she has been awarded 11.6 marks only by the respondent-Corporation whereas she was entitled to 18 marks as the financial capability of the petitioner was well over Rs.18 lacs. If these marks are granted to the petitioner, her correct total marks would come to 87.83 marks which would be higher than 87.07 awarded to Neena Goyal petitioner in CWP No.2977 of 2009 who has been placed at Sr.No.1 of the provisional merit list of empanelled candidates. 19. Respondent-Corporation asserts that the petitioner has rightly been awarded 11.6 marks which is for the funds available with the petitioner in the form of bank deposits. As per the policy dealing with the head 'capability to provide finance', only the amount in the savings bank account and free and unencumbered fixed deposits which can be easily converted into liquidated cash to cover the working capital, can be considered for award of marks. The petitioner has claimed benefit based upon the various funds. Those were all taken note of but not taken into consideration. On a representation dated 16.3.2009 preferred by the petitioner claiming benefit of such funds, a detailed speaking order dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure R-1/1) had been passed by the respondent-Corporation wherein reasons for non-consideration of those funds individually have been assigned. A perusal of the same leaves no manner of doubt that the said funds have been rightly not taken into consideration for valid and justified reasons. Thus, the petitioner has been rightly assigned the marks to which she was entitled to, as per the policy of the Corporation as also the criteria which was fixed for grant of marks. The writ petition, thus, merits dismissal. 20. In view of the above, C.W.P.No.2977 of 2009 is allowed. The impugned letters dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P-4) and 19.2.2009 (Annexure P-10) are hereby quashed and the petitioner is held eligible for consideration for allotment of INDANE (LPG) distributorship at Chunni, District Fatehgarh Sahib. However, C.W.P.Nos.4555, 4701 and 7211 of 2009 are dismissed for the reasons mentioned above.