Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 395 (JK)

Tanveer Ahmad Lone v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.

2015-08-10

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J. The petitioner, responding to the Advertisement Notice issued by respondents, inviting applications for allotment of distributorship of LPG under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV), sought consideration for being appointed as distributor for the area Sogam, Kupwara. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he completed all formalities as were prescribed in the Advertisement Notice and Information Brochure for selection as distributor under RGGLV. 3. During the process of field verification of claims of the petitioner by the respondents, the petitioner received copy of application filed by respondents u/s 148-A CPC. Thereafter, he received communication bearing No. JAO/SOGAM/01 dated 31-01-2014, where under he was informed that he, having not complied with clause IV(g) of the Information Brochure, in as much as, he was not having minimum amount of Rs. 4/- lacs in his Saving Bank Account on the date of filing of application, which was one of the main eligibility criteria, his candidature stands rejected. 4. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid communication in this writ petition on the ground that though he was not having Rs. 4/- lacs in his Saving Bank Account on the date appointed in the Advertisement Notice and Information Brochure, but he had filed Affidavit on behalf of his father, who was having more than Rs. 5/- lacs in his Saving Bank Account on the said date. 5. On notice issued, respondents have filed Reply Affidavit. Petitioner also filed Supplementary Affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that after scrutinising the application of the petitioner and after entering into satisfaction that it is complete in all respects and it satisfied all the eligibility requirements, the petitioner was called to witness the draw of lots and thereafter he was selected for being awarded the distributorship under RGGLV. It is further submitted that in sequel thereto, the petitioner was asked to fulfil some formalities, which he did. Learned counsel further submitted that the land, which was offered in the first instance by the petitioner, was not found suitable and he was asked to provide alternate land, which was also provided by the petitioner but immediately thereafter, the impugned communication dated 31-01-2014 was received by him. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents, in their Reply Affidavit, have stated that father of the petitioner was not having Rs. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents, in their Reply Affidavit, have stated that father of the petitioner was not having Rs. 4/- lacs in his Saving Bank Account on the cut off date, the petitioner was constrained to file Supplementary Affidavit with the record of the bank to show that his father, in fact, was having Rs. 4/- lacs in his Saving Bank Account. 7. Mr. Anil Bhan, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the terms and conditions of Information Brochure for selection of a distributor under RGGLV, the petitioner was not having minimum total amount of Rs. 4/- lacs as closing balance on the last date of submission of application and as he was lacking the basic eligibility qualification, his application was rejected. In this behalf, learned counsel referred to judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 9 SCC 403 , paragraph 10 whereof has also been reproduced at paragraph 04 of the Reply Affidavit and submitted that the apex Court has held that only because the candidate was allowed to participate in the process of selection, that would not attract the Principle of Estopple in a case where the candidate was ineligible for being subjected to selection process at the first place. 8. Mr. Sofi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the aforementioned decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court would not be attracted to the facts of this case, in as much as, it was selection for a post and not for awarding of distributorship as are the facts in the case on hand. 9. The Advertisement Notice as also Information Brochure specifically mentioned that in order to be eligible, the applicant must have Rs/4/- lacs as closing balance in his Saving Bank Account on the last date of submission of application. Admittedly, the petitioner was not having the said amount in his Saving Bank Account on the appointed date. 10. The Advertisement Notice and Information Brochure constitute not only information but representation to the applicants. The terms and conditions contained in both these documents not only bind the authorities but also the candidate/s who respond to the Advertisement Notice. 11. Admittedly, petitioner was not eligible on the terms and conditions of the Advertisement Notice and Information Brochure. 10. The Advertisement Notice and Information Brochure constitute not only information but representation to the applicants. The terms and conditions contained in both these documents not only bind the authorities but also the candidate/s who respond to the Advertisement Notice. 11. Admittedly, petitioner was not eligible on the terms and conditions of the Advertisement Notice and Information Brochure. His filing of application, though processed by the respondents and being subjected to selection process, would not remove the basic and fundamental defect of petitioner being ineligible. The respondents, in fact, have clubbed an ineligible person in the selection process with the eligible candidates, who constitute a different class in themselves and thereby have violated their rights guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution of India. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that after verifying the credentials of the petitioner and after entering into satisfaction about his eligibility, he was subjected to selection process also, cannot cure the basic defect of his ineligibility. In the conduct of human affairs, mistakes are being committed. A mistake committed by a human being would not clothe a person with any right, being not eligible on the terms and conditions of the Advertisement Notice and Information Brochure. A human error would not convert an ineligible candidate into an eligible one. An error, which is of fundamental importance, whenever discovered, has to be rectified and an ineligible candidate has to be excluded from the process of selection. 12. In the light of what has been observed above, this writ petition, being meritless, is dismissed along with connected IAs. However, in the facts of this case, respondents would have to repay the amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner which he had deposited with them, within two weeks from today.