Rekha Kumari, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.8.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3136 of 2003 by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition of the petitioner respondent has been allowed. The Appellant-respondent has filed the above writ petition for quashing the letter dated 12.3.2003 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition) issued by the appellant wherein the appellants offer letter dated 18.1.2003 (Annexure-4 of the writ petition) to the respondent to the post of Operator-D Trainee (Power and Utility) was cancelled and withdrawn.

2. The admitted facts in this case are that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC)-appellant wanted to appoint some Operators-D grade (Power and Utility) in Barauni Refinery in the pay scale of Rs. 5400-10850 for which they require trainees who were to be appointed against the vacant posts after successful completion of six months training. The appellant, hence, notified about it to the employment exchange. The names of the respondent and several other candidates were sent. The respondent appeared at a written examination. He passed the same. He was called for interview by letter dated 16.12.2002. He attended the interview. At the time of interview he was required to fill up a declaration form. There was specific question therein as to whether the candidate had ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or fined, convicted by any court of law etc. The petitioner answered it as No. There was also a column at the end meant for additional information, if any, but the respondent did not mention anything in this column. He participated in the interview and was selected for the appointment as a Trainee. The offer letter was issued to him to join the post of Operator-D Trainee on a consolidated stipend of Rs. 2500.00 per month. The respondent reported to join on 17.2.2003. At the time of joining he was required to fill up certain forms including attestation form (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of the writ petition). In that form there was a column as to whether any case was pending against the candidate in any court of law at the time of interview. The respondent filled up the column, as Yes. The respondent along with others joined the post on 17.2.2003. They were directed to report to S.T.R.M. for undergoing six months training. On 13.3.2003 he was handed over Annexure-1 by which the offer letter (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) was cancelled and withdrawn.

3. The grievance of the petitioner respondent in the writ petition was that the action of the appellant IOC was arbitrary, illegal; and that as no notice to show cause and no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner-respondent before passing the order, the action of the I.O.C. is violative of the provisions of the Constitution and that once the offer was accepted, it could not have been cancelled or withdrawn.

4. The I.O.C. in its counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, submitted that the offer letter was provisional and was subject to character and antecedent being found satisfactory. On the date of joining itself, the petitioner-respondent submitted the attestation form from which it came to notice that a criminal case was pending against him. So in order to avoid delay and mitigate the hardship of the candidate, his joining was not accepted but he was provisionally allowed along with other candidates to report to S.T.R.M. for further instruction till the final decision was taken in his case. The petitioner respondent thereafter was called on various occasions to clarify further about the criminal case and for not disclosing the same in the declaration form, but he never replied to the questions. So as his antecedent was not found satisfactory and he did not satisfy the condition/norm of the offer letter, the offer letter was cancelled and withdrawn. No notice to show cause was required as the provision of Article 311(2) of the Constitution is not applicable in such case.

5