JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Robin Fanda has approached this Court with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that by a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition or by any other appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: 1. allow this writ petition. 2. quash and set aside the communication/order dated 19.05.2011 (Annex.9) and, so also, the order of cancellation of earlier result may be quashed. 3. It is further prayed that the respondents may be directed to give distributorship of LPG for Suratgarh town as per result dated 27.11.2010. 4. It is prayed that interviews held subsequently and merit list (Annex-11) may kindly be quashed and set aside. 5. pass any other order, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. allow cost of the writ petition to the petitioner." 2. Facts in nutshell are that in furtherance of an advertisement published in the newspaper Rajasthan Patrika on 13.3.2010, applications were invited by the respondent BPCL for award of LPG Distributorships at various places. The petitioner being a member of the Scheduled Caste community claims to have applied for the distributorship at the location Suratgarh which, as per the advertisement, was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. Total of 205 candidates applied for the location at Suratgarh out of which, 118 participated in the interview. After evaluation, the petitioner was ranked as Candidate No.1 whereas, Ravindra Kumar and Mr.Gunjan Madhia stood Second and Third respectively. The petitioner further claims that people bearing jealousy with him developed an ill motive because of his selection for the distributorship and a totally frivolous Writ Petition No.281/2011 was filed by one M/s.Suratgarh Agency before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench Jaipur claiming that there was no requirement of another gas agency in Suratgarh. The petitioner was intentionally not impleaded as a party in the said writ petition. However no sooner, the impleadment application of the petitioner being the 1st ranked candidate in the selection process was accepted, the said writ petition was withdrawn on 4.3.2011. The petitioner was intentionally not impleaded as a party in the said writ petition. However no sooner, the impleadment application of the petitioner being the 1st ranked candidate in the selection process was accepted, the said writ petition was withdrawn on 4.3.2011. The select list was published on 27.11.2010 but despite lapse of significant period of time, the Letter of Intent was not forthcoming whereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation to the competent authority on 19.4.2011 upon which and to his utter surprise, the petitioner received a communication dated 19.5.2011 informing him that a complaint had been received regarding the interview process and after investigation, the interviews held between 24.11.2010 to 27.11.2010 for award of distributorship at Suratgarh location were declared vitiated and the BPCL had decided to hold fresh interviews. The petitioner claims that despite his lawful selection in the interviews, the result whereof had attained finality, without any intimation, or opportunity of hearing, the result was unilaterally and arbitrarily cancelled and the respondents have decided to proceed with fresh interview process contrary to the guidelines thereby extinguishing the crystalized rights of the petitioner. After receiving the communication dated 19.5.2011, the petitioner applied for being provided the reasons behind the impugned action but no information was given whereupon, the instant writ petition came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner for assailing the communication dated 19.5.2011 (Annex.9) and seeking a direction to the respondents to issue the Letter of Intent forthwith in favour of the petitioner in terms of the result of interviews held on 27.11.2010. 3. Shri Rajesh Joshi learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Vineet R.Dave Advocate representing the petitioner drew the Court's attention to the guidelines applicable to the selection process in question more particularly the Conditions Nos.15, 21 and 22 thereof and urged that these guidelines which are mandatory in nature clearly stipulate that a complaint against the selection process can only be entertained if received by the office concerned within one month from the date of declaration of the result. He urged that in the case at hand, the respondents, not only entertained the frivolous complaint well after mandatory limit of 30 days as provided in the guidelines but they also undertook the investigation process on the complaint unilaterally to the prejudice of the petitioner being the selected candidate without providing him any opportunity of hearing and cancelled the result of interview behind the back of the petitioner in a totally clandestine fashion. Referring to the reply of the respondents and the material documents being the field verification report dated 7.2.2011 issued by the investigating committee constituted of three Members and the final inquiry report dated 23.3.2011, Shri Joshi submitted that the inquiry committee clearly recommended that the complaint submitted by Sh.Gunjan Madhia the empanelled candidate No.3 had no substance and the Office was directed to proceed to forward and issue Letter of Intent to the first empaneled candidate i.e. the petitioner herein. He submitted that the entire frivolous and malicious exercise of depriving the petitioner from the gas agency in question despite his due selection in the fair and transparent interview process was undertaken at the instance of Sh.Gunjan Madhia and his father Sh.H.K.Madhia who is employed as an officer in the BPCL Noida and the entire proceedings have been manipulated under their undue influence. Striking at the unfairness of the proceedings and attributing malafides to the respondents for the impugned action, Shri Joshi drew the Court's attention to various letters written by the petitioner for seeking information about the basis of the impugned action and urged that repeated efforts made by the petitioner to get the requisite information were intentionally thwarted/frustrated because the respondents were aware that their illegal and arbitrary acts infringing the fundamental and statutory rights of a scheduled caste candidate would be exposed if the information sought for was provided. Shri Joshi further drew the Court's attention to the inquiry committee's report dated 23.3.2011 wherein the committee took note of the fact that Mr.Gunjan Madhia even managed to procure an affidavit of one of the interview committee members. 4. Shri Joshi urged that the very fact that the affidavit of Shri Ramji Lal, a member of the interview committee was in possession of Mr. Gunjan Madhia clearly establishes that the entire exercise was manipulated and stage managed by Mr. 4. Shri Joshi urged that the very fact that the affidavit of Shri Ramji Lal, a member of the interview committee was in possession of Mr. Gunjan Madhia clearly establishes that the entire exercise was manipulated and stage managed by Mr. H.K. Madhia who was posted as an Officer in the BPCL and thus nepotism and favouritism is writ large on the face of record in the impugned action. The most fervent and vehement argument advanced by Shri Joshi to assail the impugned action, was that in the entire scheme of selection guidelines, there is no provision for holding fresh interviews and thus, not only did the respondents commit a blunder while entertaining the complaint after the mandatory limit of 30 days but they also committed a grave and fundamental error while directing fresh interviews on the basis of totally unsubstantiated allegations made by a candidate having influence in the affairs of the Corporation. He thus prayed for acceptance of the writ petition with heavy cost urging that the petitioner, being an unemployed youth belonging to the Scheduled Caste community has been unjustly and illegally deprived from earning livelihood for a long period of almost 7 years owing to the highhanded motivated and perverse actions of the respondents. 5. Per contra, Shri Sunil Beniwal Advocate representing the respondent Corporation and Shri Kuldeep Mathur Advocate representing the respondent Mr.Gunjan Madhia vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. They drew the Court's attention to the above-referred affidavit dated 10.1.2011 sworn by Shri Ramji Lal being one of the members of the interview committee and urged that since a person placed so high in the evaluation process, gave an affidavit raising serious question-marks on the fairness of the interview committee's proceedings, the decision to hold fresh interviews is absolutely justified and would result into a fair exercise for allocation of public resources and cannot be termed to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner. On these submissions, they craved dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. Manifestly, while proceeding with the evaluation process for award of distributorship under the advertisement, there is no option with the Corporation but to act otherwise than as stipulated in the selection guidelines. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. Manifestly, while proceeding with the evaluation process for award of distributorship under the advertisement, there is no option with the Corporation but to act otherwise than as stipulated in the selection guidelines. Upon a pertinent query being put by the Court, Shri Beniwal learned counsel representing the respondent Corporation had no option but to agree that there is no provision in the guidelines for holding fresh interviews in a concluded selection process. As per Clause 22.4.1 of the dealership guidelines laying down the procedure for disposal of complaints, in case, a complaint is not substantiated, the same shall have to be filed. As per Clause 22.4.2, in case of established complaint against the empaneled candidate, action will be taken with regard to appointment of the next candidate in the merit panel. Even assuming for arguments' sake that Sh.Gunjan Madhia submitted the complaint within the stipulated limit of 30 days, the same was thoroughly investigated and was not established as per the exhaustive report dated 26.3.2011 submitted by the investigation committee. For the sake of convenience, these observations of the inquiry committee report need a mention and are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: "One of the interview committee members Mr. Ramji Lal has submitted a letter addressed to RLM(N) and Copied to GM SALES (BUS DEV), MUMBAI. In this letter he has stated that he was unhappy because the marks were altered by all committee members after the receipt of the FAX message, because of which, Mr. Gunjan Madhia who was 1st on the merit list was brought down to 3rd. He has given an affidavit, in which he has declared that due to the intervention of the Territory manager Mr. Mohit Bhatia vide fax received from Jaipur Dealer Association, the scoring nos of Sh Gunjan Madhia was reduced and he was detained from rank 1 to rank 3. Surprisingly this affidavit is in the possession of Mr. Gunjan Madhia and Mr. Ramji lal could not give any satisfactory explanation why he preferred not to give it to any concerned BPCL official. Even going by the background data provided, the complainant had declared no experience related to LPG. He has declared 4 years experience in ICICI and 3 months experience in APTECH education. Gunjan Madhia and Mr. Ramji lal could not give any satisfactory explanation why he preferred not to give it to any concerned BPCL official. Even going by the background data provided, the complainant had declared no experience related to LPG. He has declared 4 years experience in ICICI and 3 months experience in APTECH education. Going by such declaration, Ramji Lal's contention that everyone in the committee altered the marks for experience from 4 to 2 remains unexplained. Both the other 2 committee members have declared that the fax had no bearing on the final marks allotted. The same Mr. Ramji Lal has verbally stated during our meeting, wich is recorded in the proceedings that Mr. Mohit Bhatia just handed over the copy of the FAX to the committee and left the cabin in response to the query whether Mr. Mohit Bhatia discuss or suggest anything on the contents of the FAX with him or any of the Interview Committee members. In spite of being seriously in objection to the alteration of marks, which he said he was pressurized to do, he did not think it fit to report the same immediately to RLM(N), who had nominated him as member of the committee, on his reporting to HQ on 29th Nov 2010. He however sent a letter expressing the same dated 16.12.2010 addressed to RLM(N) and copied to GM SALES(Business Development) Mumbai. This was never received by RLM(N)'s office. He has also stated in the meeting that he gave a copy of the letter to Mr. H K Madhia, father of the complainant Mr. Gunjan Madhia. The contention of the complainant that Mr. Mohit Bhatia, TM Bikaner compelled the interview committee members is baseless, as other two committee members have unanimously declared that Mr. Mohit Bhatia just handed over the fax from Rajasthan Petroleum Dealers Association and left the room and the two members have confirmed that the marks were awarded individually without any member being pressurized. With regard to the third member Mr. Ramji lal allegation that the marks were altered against the 3rd empaneled candidate, by reducing two marks for experience, there is no evidence to substantiate the same, though he had sworn an affidavit in support of the same. This is evident from the following facts: All the committee members had signed the final mark sheet. There is no correction/tampering/cutting of marks noticed in the mark sheet. This is evident from the following facts: All the committee members had signed the final mark sheet. There is no correction/tampering/cutting of marks noticed in the mark sheet. There is no dissent note put by any member while signing the final mark sheet or the individual mark sheets-which were checked by us. The 3rd member Mr.RamjiLal did not even report his dissatisfaction to RLM-North, immediately on resumption of duty after the interview. No satisfactory explanation was given by him to justify the omission of not reporting to RLM-N. CONCLUSION: There are significant discrepancies between what the complainant had stated in his 2 complaint letters and what he stated during the personal meeting as enumerated in the findings. The letter from the third interview committee member and the affidavit signed by him contradict the statements made by him during our personal meeting with him. He has also shared official documents like the letter he addressed to RLM(N), the affidavit and copy of the fax message with the complainant through his father, who is an employee of BPCL. In fact, that the original of the affidavit signed by him is in the possession of the complainant only and not submitted to any of the concerned company officials. His reasoning for this is also unconvincing, as he has not even attempted to meet RLM (North) to express his grievance, in spite of the close proximity of their offices. Therefore his allegation is not established with any evidence during the inquiry and seems more of an afterthought action and hence unwarranted." 8. The guidelines clearly stipulate that if a complaint is not substantiated, the same shall be filed. Rather than complying with the mandatory guidelines prescribed by the Government of India, the respondents acted in an absolutely highhanded fashion and have deprived the petitioner of his crystalized and lawful right to establish and operate the gas agency for manifestly oblique motive tainted with nepotism and favouritism. The entire proceedings of the complaint were instigated and manipulate at the instance of the candidate No.3 Mr.Gunjan Madhia whose father as stated above is an officer in the BPCL. However, the investigation committee did not succumb to this pressure and held that the complaint was not substantiated. Despite these findings, fresh interviews were directed while cancelling the earlier result in which the petitioner was declared as empanelled candidate No.1. However, the investigation committee did not succumb to this pressure and held that the complaint was not substantiated. Despite these findings, fresh interviews were directed while cancelling the earlier result in which the petitioner was declared as empanelled candidate No.1. Thus, the entire endeavour of the respondents reflects of a concerted attempt to frustrate the lawful claim of the petitioner. The fact that Shri Ramji Lal being a member of the interview committee swore an affidavit dated 10.1.2011 alleging irregularities in the interview process for the first time and directly handed the same over to said Mr.Gunjan Madhia indeed brings the very credibility of the member concerned under a grave cloud of doubt. Manifestly, he participated in the interview process without a murmur and awarded marks to the empaneled candidates and the result was declared on 27.11.2010 after overall evaluation of marks awarded to all the participating candidates. However, the integrity of the said member seems to have been won over by the said Mr.H.K.Madhia being the father of the respondent Gunjan Madhia and the Corporation Officials, who were apparently influenced by their peer, joined hands with such an unscrupulous element and while ignoring the investigation committee's report dated 26.3.2011, directed fresh interviews for award of the dealership by order dated 19.5.2011 when no reason or justification is shown for such action which otherwise also is impermissible under the guidelines. Thus, it is a fittest case wherein, while exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only is the Court required to quash the impugned action but, heavy cost has to be imposed on the respondents. 9. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annex.9) dated 19.5.2011 whereby, fresh interviews were invited for the gas agency at Suratgarh, is hereby declared to be grossly illegal, perverse and arbitrary and is thus, quashed and struck down. The respondents shall forthwith and not later than within a period of 15 days from today, issue the requisite Letter of Intent to the petitioner in terms of the result of interviews published on 27.11.2016. A cost of Rs. 3 lacs is imposed upon the respondent Corporation and a cost of Rs. The respondents shall forthwith and not later than within a period of 15 days from today, issue the requisite Letter of Intent to the petitioner in terms of the result of interviews published on 27.11.2016. A cost of Rs. 3 lacs is imposed upon the respondent Corporation and a cost of Rs. 1 lac is imposed on the respondent No.4 Mr.Gunjan Madhia for frustrating and delaying the award of dealership by acting with nepotism, favouritism and arbitrariness, thereby depriving the petitioner of his fundamental right to earn livelihood by operating the gas agency for a period of almost 7 years despite his lawful entitlement. The Corporation would be free to recover the cost from the responsible officials. Cost upon being realized, shall be paid to the petitioner. Stay application is disposed of.