Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 143 (MP)

Jitendra Sharma v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation

2014-01-29

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
ORDER 1. The petitioner, by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has impugned the order dated 9.9.2013 passed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Corporation). The petitioner's candidature is rejected by this order. 2. The admitted facts between the parties are that the petitioner preferred candidature/application for proposed Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Yojna (RGGLV) at Dinara, District Shivpuri. The said candidature was submitted by pursuant to advertisement Annexure P-2. By brochure (Annexure P-3), the respondents Corporation has prescribed the eligibility criteria and other relevant considerations. Admittedly, the petitioner at the time of submission of initial application stated that he is not married and he is “single”. However, at the time of spot inspection, the petitioner submitted a representation, Annexure P-10. By this representation, he informed the Corporation that his marriage was solemnized on 13.6.2011 but incorrectly he mentioned his marital status as “single”. It is prayed in this representation that his aforesaid status be corrected. 3. The respondents, in turn, passed the impugned order and rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he suppressed the material fact in his original application. In other words, it is held that the petitioner has misrepresented the fact about his marriage in his initial application for RGGLV and secondly, he does not meet the eligibility criteria for land as the land shown by the petitioner is in the name of his father. As per the definition mentioned in the brochure, petitioner is not eligible. 4. Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, by criticizing the said reasons contended that the petitioner did not have command in English. He filled up the initial form of candidature in English with the help of a friend, who knows English. Because of the error of his friend, his marital status was incorrectly shown as “single” and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has misrepresented any fact. He further submits that the affidavit of father, Annexure P-11 and the will in favour of the petitioner, Annexure P-13 makes it clear that the petitioner will be the owner of the property/land. He submits that the said property has to be treated as ancestral co-parcener property on which petitioner has a legal right and, therefore, the definition relied upon is irrational. He submits that the said property has to be treated as ancestral co-parcener property on which petitioner has a legal right and, therefore, the definition relied upon is irrational. He further submits that before canceling the candidature of the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing is provided which runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and the judgments reported in ILR (2013) MP 837 (Central Homeopathic and Biochemic Association, Gwalior and others v. State of M.P. and others). He also relied on certain provisions of the Contract Act to submit that if anything is incorrectly mentioned in the contract that will not make the contract as a void one. By placing reliance on AIR 1994 SC 988 (Union of India and others v. Hindustan Development Corpn. and others), it is contended that a Government Organization cannot put improper restrictions nor can prescribe arbitrary or unjustifiable reservations in the policy or principles. 5. Per contra, Ms. Sweta Bothra, learned counsel for the Corporation, supported the order. By taking this Court to various paragraphs of the return, it is contended that there is no legal error in the order impugned which warrant interference by this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The advertisement, Annexure P-2 prescribes general conditions. As per condition 14(a) read with (f), the right was reserved by the Corporation to reject the candidature, if any information is found to be false or incorrect. Such condition is also mentioned in the brochure in clause 16. It is mentioned that if any information given by the applicant is found to be incorrect, the allotment shall be cancelled. Even if allotment order is issued, it will be cancelled. 8. In the present case, the advertisement was published on 19.5.2012. Admittedly, petitioner's marriage took place on 13.6.2011. Whether or not it is deliberate, it is admitted that the initial information given by the petitioner about his marital status was incorrect. The petitioner furnished this information by Annexure P-10 only when a spot inspection was carried out. The respondents have rejected the candidature on yet another ground. Apart from furnishing incorrect information about marital status, it is opined that as per the requirement of the brochure, the petitioner is not eligible. The petitioner furnished this information by Annexure P-10 only when a spot inspection was carried out. The respondents have rejected the candidature on yet another ground. Apart from furnishing incorrect information about marital status, it is opined that as per the requirement of the brochure, the petitioner is not eligible. As per the brochure, the ownership is defined as under :- “Own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member of the 'Family Unit' as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm. In case of ownership/co-ownership, by family member consent letter from the family member will be required.” Clause 4(e) defines family unit as under :- “Family Unit' in case of married person/applicant shall consist of individual concerned his/her Spouse and their unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/applicant, 'family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s). In case of divorce 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s) whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s) unmarried daughter(s).” 9. Although Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi has taken pains to submit that definition of 'family unit' is irrational, arbitrary and unjustifiable, I am not impressed with this argument. It is said to be arbitrary by taking assistance of certain provisions of Contract Act and Succession Act. In the considered opinion of this Court, the candidature and eligibility of the petitioner is to be tested on the anvil of the eligibility conditions laid down in the brochure. In other words, if petitioner fulfills the eligibility conditions mentioned in the brochure, then alone he can be said to be an eligible candidate. To decide petitioner's eligibility, no assistance can be sought from the Contract Act or from the Succession Act. More-so, when petitioner has not chosen to challenge the validity of the brochure/criteria for selection. Thus, in absence of any such challenge, this Court is not obliged to examine the validity of eligible conditions. As per the definition of family unit, in case of a married person, it is clear that it includes the said person/candidate, his/her spouse and their unmarried children. Thus, it is crystal clear that for a married person, father is not part of the family unit. As per the definition of family unit, in case of a married person, it is clear that it includes the said person/candidate, his/her spouse and their unmarried children. Thus, it is crystal clear that for a married person, father is not part of the family unit. Admittedly, petitioner is a married person and his father's land cannot be taken into account to decide the eligibility of the petitioner. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner needs to establish that he has fulfilled common eligible criteria mentioned in Clause 4 of the brochure. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents have rightly stated that on the date of application the petitioner was a married person and accordingly, the land shown in the name of his father cannot be considered as petitioner's own land. On the basis of the provisions of the brochure, no fault can be found in the action of the respondents. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment cited by Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi are of no assistance. No right is created in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, there was no question to provide him opportunity before rejecting his candidature. In Pankaj Mantri v. Indian Oil Corporation, Bhopal and another (2013(3) M.P.L.J. 466), the Indore Bench has considered the impact of misrepresentation by candidate in the application form. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to mention that in the advertisement and in the brochure it was made clear that any misrepresentation or wrong information will lead to rejection of the candidature. 12. The apex Court in (2007) 4 SCC 410 (Shiv Kant Yadav v. Indian Oil Corpn. and others) held that misstatement/misrepresentation may lead to cancellation by the Indian Oil Corporation. The same view is taken in Pankaj Mantri (supra). The twin reasons assigned by the respondents are in consonance with the legal position. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no legal infirmity which warrants interference by this Court in the impugned order. 13. Petition is merit-less and is hereby dismissed.