Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 370 (GAU)

Rupa Das v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2016-05-05

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) and their officers are represented by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. M.K. Choudhury. 2. The matter pertains to selection for the Kisan Seva Kendras (KSK) outlet under the IOCL for which a newspaper advertisement was issued on 9.2.2006 (Annexure-I). The advertised KSK outlet at Jonaram Chowk in Paschim Mangaldoi Block of Darrang District was reserved for women candidate of Schedule Caste Category. The petitioner responded to the advertisement and submitted her application within the permitted period. 3. But much later, the petitioner was informed through the letter dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure-III) that her candidature was rejected as she failed to produce the Residence Certificate. The candidate received this letter on 4.9.2009 and immediately she approached the authorities on 7.9.2009 to seek clarification on the rejection letter dated 27.8.2009. While the petitioner was present in the office of the 3rd respondent, she was furnished with another letter dated 7.9.2009, where the rejection of the petitioner’s candidate was attributed to another cause, namely, that she failed to furnish the Caste Certificate from the competent authority along with her application. The earlier ground of not furnishing the Residence Certificate was attributed to be an inadvertent mistake. 4. Questioning the bonafide of the decision to reject her candidature, Mr. S.K. Medhi, the learned Counsel submits that the KSK outlet was earmarked exclusively for Scheduled Caste Category and therefore it is highly improbable for any applicant, not to furnish the Caste certificate along with their application. Moreover since the respondents have changed the reason for rejection of the candidature in the two letters addressed to the petitioner on 27.8.2009 an on 7.9.2009, the petitioner questions the fairness of the verification exercise of the applications, in the selection process. 5. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel submits that although the petitioner’s applications were received in November, 2006 since the selection exercise was undertaken for many outlets, the applications for the Jonaram Chowk KSK outlet were examined only on 18.6.2009 and at that stage, the absence of the relevant certificate was noticed with the application of the writ petitioner. But while intimating the reason for rejection, inadvertently, instead of the missing Caste Certificate, Residence Certificate was mentioned in the 1st letter sent by the IOCL on 27.8.2009. But while intimating the reason for rejection, inadvertently, instead of the missing Caste Certificate, Residence Certificate was mentioned in the 1st letter sent by the IOCL on 27.8.2009. But when the mistake was realised after the petitioner appeared in the office on 7.9.2009, the 2nd letter by way of corrigendum was issued to the petitioner on 7.9.2009 itself, with the information that the applicant had not enclosed the Caste Certificate, along with her application. 6. When an aspirant applies for a KSK outlet earmarked for Scheduled Caste category, the Caste certificate will be an essential appendix to the application of any candidate. But it is seen from the records produced by the respondents’ lawyer that the Caste certificate is not enclosed with the application filed by the writ petitioner. The applicants are required to furnish many documents in support of their candidature and the petitioner’s application together with the annexures run into 141 pages and I find that all the annexures are arranged in seriatim and are paginated. Therefore the possibility of not enclosing the Caste Certificate by the applicant through sheer inadvertence, can’t be ruled out. 7. The next issue to be considered is whether the respondents could have furnished one reason for rejection of the candidate with their 1st letter of 27.8.2009 and substitute that reason with another one, in their second letter of 7.9.2009. The endorsement made in the check list for scrutiny of applications reflects against item 15 that, the petitioner’s application was rejected as she failed to enclose the Caste Certificate with her application. Therefore the reason for rejection of the candidature is absence of the Caste Certificate and the mistake in mentioning the reason in the first letter would not in my view be fatal which would warrant intervention with the selection exercise. 8. That apart, when the aggrieved candidate approached the Court to challenge the rejection of her candidature, the selection exercise was not stayed but this Court passed an interim order on 8.9.2009, whereby stay on declaration of the result of the interview scheduled to be held on 10.9.2009 was ordered. The learned Senior Counsel for the IOCL submits that the eligible candidates were evaluated on 19.9.2009 but the declaration of result is withheld because of the interim order passed by this Court. The learned Senior Counsel for the IOCL submits that the eligible candidates were evaluated on 19.9.2009 but the declaration of result is withheld because of the interim order passed by this Court. He further submits that since the writ petitioner failed to enclose the Caste Certificate, her candidature could not have been considered by the selection board when it met on 10.9.2006. The difficulties in organising a separate selection for a single candidate, 6 years after the original selection was made, is also mentioned by Mr. Choudhury, to urge against any relief for the petitioner. 9. The application of the petitioner for the KSK outlet contained many documents but unfortunately the Caste Certificate is not appended with the application. The Court has no reason to suspect any tampering with the application records and neither such case is projected by the petitioner. The reason for rejection of the application is clearly reflected in the noting made on 30.11.2006 in the check list, where the absence of the Caste certificate is mentioned. 10. Therefore the reason for rejection mentioned in the IOCL’s 1st letter of 27.8.2009 can’t be a ground for grating any relief to the petitioner particularly when, the selection exercise was undertaken as far back as on 10.9.2009. In view of the above discussion, I see no scope to grant any relief to the applicant whose candidature was rejected and accordingly this case is dismissed.