SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 470

2010 (3) Supreme 758
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Smt. Monika Gupta — Appellant
versus
Union of India and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4456 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.228 of 2009)
Decided on : 13-5-2010

Headnote:LPG Distributorship – Respondent no. 4 not producing any document in respect of availability of godown/show room along with the application as required – Selection Committee rightly not awarded any marks under the head – Cancellation of the panel erroneous. (Para 17)

       Facts of the case:

       In this appeal the appellant challenges the order cancelling the panel/merit-list prepared by the Selection Committee on 29.8.2007 for appointment of LPG distributor.

       Finding of the Court:

       The is no error in Selection Committee’s panel.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Having failed to convince the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court that order dated 29.7.2008 passed by respondent No.3 – Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Regional Office Loni, District Ghaziabad (U.P.) cancelling the panel/merit-list prepared by the Selection Committee on 29.8.2007 for appointment of LPG distributor at Nawabganj, District Farukhabad (U.P.) is vitiated by an error of law, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3.In response to advertisement dated 9.2.2004 issued by respondent No.3, ten persons including the appellant and respondent No.4 submitted applications for appointment as LPG distributor at Nawabgunj. The Selection Committee interviewed the eligible candidates on 29.8.2007 and awarded marks in accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph 13 of the brochure issued by respondent No.2 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The appellant was placed at No.1 in the panel/merit-list prepared by the Selection Committee. Smt. Anjali Gangwar and Smt. Ragini Bhardwaj were placed at Nos.2 and 3 respectively.

4.Smt. Ragini Bhardwaj filed Writ Petition No.43531 of 2007 and prayed for issue of direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to prepare fresh panel/merit list by asserting that the Selection Committee had not awarded the marks as per the criteria specified in the brochure. The same was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court on 17.9.2007 by taking note of the statement made by counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that the grievance of the writ petitioner will be considered and her representation will be decided within four weeks after giving opportunity of hearing. Writ Petition No.48817 of 2007 filed by respondent No.4 was also disposed of in similar terms.

5.In furtherance of the orders passed by the High Court, respondent No.3 issued notices to the selected candidates and respondent No.4, who filed their respective claims. After giving them opportunity of personalhearing, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 29.7.2008 whereby he cancelled the panel/merit-list and decided that fresh list will be prepared after interviewing the candidates and evaluating their inter-se merit. The relevant portions of that order, as contained in Annexure P.5 filed with SLP (C) No.228 of 2009, are reproduced below:

“Such investigation revealed that as regards the complaints made by Smt. Anjali Gangwar and Smt. Ragini Bhardwaj, the said complaints do not attract any change in the merit panel based on the contents of the complaints made by Smt. Meena Gangwar revealed that there was an anomaly in the award of marks whereby Smt. Meena Gangwar should have been given 30 marks in respect of `infrastructure’.

However, considering that such erroneous evaluation at the level-1 committee in the interview and selection made 29.8.2007 itself, such erroneous evaluation calls for cancellation of the merit panel itself which thereby results in the cancellation of the entire selection. Accordingly, the higher management had considered cancellation of the entire selection panel and thereby hold a fresh evaluation and interview whereby proper scrutiny of all applications shall be ensured towards which all those eligible candidates would face a fresh interview and a new selection panel thereby awarding a fresh opportunity to all such eligible applicants.

Thus in compliance of the orders dated 17.9.2007 and 11.10.2007 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the above mentioned writ petitions, this speaking order is hereby pronounced and the three complaints made by Smt. Anjali Gangwar, Smt. Ragini Bhardwaj and Smt. Meena Gangwar dated 6.9.2007 nip sent NZ on 9.9.2007 and 3.9.2007 respectively are hereby finally disposed of.”

6.The appellant challenged the aforementioned order in Writ Petition No.39842 of 2008 by contending that in view of the provisions of the brochure issued by respondent No.2, the documents allegedly filed by respondent No.4 after submissi



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top