Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1748 (HP)

Vinod Kumari v. Indian Oil Corporation

2015-12-01

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the allotment of petrol pump at Bhabanagar in favour of respondent No. 4 and has filed the instant petition with the following prayers:- (a) That the respondents may kindly be ordered to produce all the relevant records for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (b) The allotment of the petrol pump in favour of the respondent No. 4 may kindly be ordered to be set aside and quashed and keeping in view the detailed submissions made above, the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be allotted the petrol pump she having fulfilling the eligibility criteria and being in seniority to other candidates. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 issued a publication for allotment of petrol pump at Bhawanagar in the newspaper dated 4th September, 2009, pursuant to which petitioner as also the respondent No. 4 and one Smt. Rattan Kumari submitted their applications. Petitioner, along with the aforesaid two candidates appeared before the Selection committee on 22.4.2010. 3. On 13.5.2010, petitioner came to know that her candidature has not been accepted and she accordingly made a representation on the said date. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 17.8.2010 informed the petitioner that there had been certain errors in allocation of marks to the petitioner at their end, but even after correcting such errors, there was no change in the total marks awarded in favour of petitioner and consequently there is no change in the selection panel. 4. The petitioner thereafter submitted a demand notice where she claimed that she ought to have been awarded full marks i.e. 35 for the land and in case the same were awarded, the petrol pump would have been allotted in her favour. Respondents in reply to the said notice reiterated the stand as taken in their letter dated 17.8.2010 (supra). It is against the rejection of the claim for allotment of the petrol pump that the present writ petition has been preferred by her. 5. The official respondents have filed their reply reiterating therein that the petitioner under the garb of bona-fide error on the part of the official respondents was trying to take undue advantage by setting up a claim which otherwise did not exist. The officials had bonafidely allotted 12 marks for land whereas the petitioner was not at all entitled to any marks under this Head. 6. The officials had bonafidely allotted 12 marks for land whereas the petitioner was not at all entitled to any marks under this Head. 6. The private respondent has filed separate reply, wherein it is stated that the petitioner could not have been awarded any marks under the head land since the lease in her favour was executed by a person who was not even the absolute owner of the land and was only a co sharer that too to the extent of 1/6th share of the land. Moreover, even this land had not been partitioned, thus, making the petitioner totally ineligible. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 7. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to note that when the matter came up before this court on 20.3.2015, the respondent No. 1 was directed to file a supplementary affidavit and justify as to how the petitioner was entitled only to zero marks under the head land. 8. Pursuant to these directions, respondent No. 1 filed two supplementary affidavits. Perusal thereof reveals that 12 marks though had been awarded under the head land, but in fact were required to be awarded under the sub head fund under head capability to provide finance. 9. It would further be noticed that the case of petitioner, apart from the aforesaid ground, has been further been rejected on the ground that full marks were to be given to the candidates in case the candidate was owner of the land or was a registered lease holder of the land which had been partitioned. Whereas, lease deed submitted by the petitioner showed that the land was jointly owned by the lessor with the co-sharers and the lease deed had been executed by only one of the co-sharers Sh. Ilam Chand who was the co-sharer only to the extent of 1/6th share. That apart, the land had not even been partitioned. Furthermore, even "No Objection Certificate" in the form of registered agreements from the other co sharers not had been submitted by the petitioner. Ilam Chand who was the co-sharer only to the extent of 1/6th share. That apart, the land had not even been partitioned. Furthermore, even "No Objection Certificate" in the form of registered agreements from the other co sharers not had been submitted by the petitioner. Meaning thereby, that the petitioner, at best, could be considered to be a lessee of 1/6th share out of total land measuring 00-04-56 hectares and in the absence of any partition having been carried out amongst co sharers-co-owners, even this land could not be identified and was thus the petitioner was rightly awarded zero marks under the head land. 10. It is evident from the aforesaid reply that the petitioner is unnecessarily trying to take benefit of a bona-fide error committed by the respondents, but then to err is human and is more than a practical notion of human behaviour than an abstract philosophy. The unintentional lapse on the part of the respondents cannot work to their disadvantage particularly when the petitioner has failed to satisfy this court regarding the error not being a bona-fide one or the stand of the respondents being, in any way, mischievous or contrary to the record or even mala-fide or not bona-fide. 11. Having said so, there is no merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear the costs.