Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 250 (ALL)

SANDEEP KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA

2014-01-21

A.K.AGARWAL, A.P.SAHI

body2014
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikas Budhwar for the respondents-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Sri P.S. Tripathi for the respondent no.1. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.12.2013 whereby his candidature for selection of LPG Vitrak ( RGGLV) has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner is ineligible as he has been unable to offer the land for the site of a godown as per the description in the brochure. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision taken is erroneous as the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell and had also offered the details of the land purchased from his own father who had sold it before the passing of the order itself. 4. Learned counsel submits that there was no such ineligibility suffered as pointed out in the impugned order and consequently the order deserves to be set aside. 5. Sri Budhwar has invited the attention of the Court to the terms and conditions mentioned in the brochure which provides that the land which is to be offered at the time of the application has to conform to the said guidelines and the petitioner had offered the land belonging to his father. The said land could not be taken for consideration and he was erroneously indicated in the panel inasmuch as the petitioner was married on the said date and it is only an unmarried son who could have offered such land. Consequently, the eligibility criteria disqualifies the petitioner and as such any land belonging to the father of the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration. 6. It is thereafter that an improvement has been made by getting an agreement to sell executed and then a sale deed at the time when the said claim of the petitioner was being decided. The candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled. 7. The relevant definition of a family unit under clause 4 of the guidelines which has been considered in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Awanendra Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India and others, Writ Petition No.61174 of 2013 decided on 8.11.2013, has been placed before us. Consequently, the facts as emerge indicate that the petitioner was not holding any land on the date of the application. Union of India and others, Writ Petition No.61174 of 2013 decided on 8.11.2013, has been placed before us. Consequently, the facts as emerge indicate that the petitioner was not holding any land on the date of the application. Further, the guidelines which have been clarified under the letter dated 15.6.2010 provides under Clause 8 as follows :- "8. During the FVC process, it has been observed in some cases that the land mentioned by the applicant for godown in his application is not suitable. However, the applicant has offered another plot of land ( in the advertised RGGLV location) in his name as per 'family unit' norms with date of registration on or before the date of application. In such cases it is clarified that since land is a recruitment under eligibility criteria and not a criteria for evaluation, it would be in order to consider the alternate land if it is in the name of the applicant/member of applicant's family unit and date of registration of the same is on or before the date of application. However, the same if considered has to be duly verified for it suitability during the FVC. In case the land mentioned in the application is suitable as per the criteria given in the text of advertisement/application and the candidate has an alternate plot of land ( in the advertised RGGLV location) which is more suitable for godown for the customer then the selected candidate can be allowed to construct the facilities at alternate plot of land. In case the land mentioned in the application is subsequently notified ( i.e. after date of application) for acquisition or statutory restrictions are imposed, then the candidate can be allowed to arrange for an alternate plot of land in the advertised RGGLV location within a period of two months from date of LOI." 8. A perusal of the same leaves no room for doubt that the date of registration of the document should be on or before the last date of application, that such eligibility can be considered as fulfilled by the candidate. It is a condition of eligibility and not a mere condition of evaluation. A perusal of the same leaves no room for doubt that the date of registration of the document should be on or before the last date of application, that such eligibility can be considered as fulfilled by the candidate. It is a condition of eligibility and not a mere condition of evaluation. In the circumstances, if the petitioner did not have land in his name as on the date of the application, then the land offered by him in the name of his father could not have been accepted as per the aforesaid guidelines as his marital status was of a married individual. The impugned order categorically recorded these reasons for having rejected and cancelled the candidature of the petitioner. 9. We do not find any error in the impugned order for the reasons aforesaid. There is no merit in the petition. Rejected.