Back
1993 Supreme(Cal) 524
High Court Of Calcutta
S. C. SEN, ARUN KUMAR DUTTA
SATYENDRANATH MONDAL - Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTHAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD. - Respondent
F. M. A. T. 2854 Of 1992
Decided On : 12/23/1993
ARUN PRAKASH SARKAR, DINABANDHU DAS, K.K.BANDOPADHYAY, NIRMALYA MOHAN BHATTACHARJI, PRADIP TARAFDAR, SARAT KUMAR SIL, SUBROTO BOSE
The interpretation of the terms 'unemployed', 'self-employed', and 'residence' in the context of eligibility criteria for a Retail Outlet Dealership and the validity of the selection process for the dealership.
Headnote:
PETROLEUM DEALERSHIP - SELECTION OF DEALER - ELIGIBILITY - INTERPRETATION OF ADVERTISEMENT - MEANING OF TERMS - 'UNEMPLOYED', 'SELF-EMPLOYED', 'RESIDENCE' - CONSIDERATION OF CANDIDATURE - VALIDITY - DIRECTIONS TO RECONSIDER CANDIDATURE - PROPRIETY.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners challenged the issuance of the letter of intent for Retail Outlet Dealership at Malancha, District 24-Parganas, in favor of the respondent No. 5, Radhakrishna Roy, by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Corporation). The respondent No. 5 was selected for the dealership by the Oil Selection Board (East) (Board) after an interview. The writ petitioners contended that the selection of Radhakrishna was not made properly and prayed for consideration of their respective candidates.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent No. 5, Radhakrishna, had deliberately suppressed material facts in his application, including his employment as a Cement Dealer and MR Distributor, which made him ineligible for the dealership as per the eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement. The Court also found that the Board had erred in considering Radhakrishna's application as a 'self-employed' candidate, as he had not disclosed this in his application. The Court further found that the direction of the learned Trial Judge directing the Board to consider afresh the candidature of all the intending parties, including the writ petitioners, Respondent No. 5 and others, could not be sustained.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent No. 5, Radhakrishna Roy, was eligible for the Retail Outlet Dealership based on the eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement? 2. Whether the Board erred in considering Radhakrishna's application as a 'self-employed' candidate? 3. Whether the direction of the learned Trial Judge directing the Board to consider afresh the candidature of all the intending parties was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the terms 'unemployed', 'self-employed', and 'residence' as used in the advertisement. It held that Radhakrishna was not unemployed as he was a Cement Dealer and MR Distributor at the time of applying for the dealership. The Court further held that Radhakrishna had not disclosed his self-employment status in his application, and therefore, the Board erred in considering his application on that basis. 2. The Court held that the Board erred in considering Radhakrishna's application as a 'self-employed' candidate, as he had not disclosed this in his application. The Court found that the Board had been biased and prejudiced in favor of Radhakrishna and had improperly considered his case for being awarded the dealership on the footing that he is a 'self-employed' person having no income, which had never been indicated by him in his relevant application. 3. The Court held that the direction of the learned Trial Judge directing the Board to consider afresh the candidature of all the intending parties was not justified. The Court found that there was no question of considering the candidature of the remaining 17 candidates who were not empanelled by the Board as eligible candidates. The Court also found that the candidature of Radhakrishna could not be reconsidered as he was ineligible for the dealership.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the selection of Radhakrishna by the Board and directed the Corporation to offer the Retail Outlet Dealership to the writ petitioner-appellant, Satyendra Nath Mondal, who had obtained the second highest mark in the interview and was empanelled by the Board as an eligible candidate.
( 1 ) THE instant Appeal, along with three other Appeals, being F. M. A. T. Nos. 2824, 2879 and 2481 of 1992, are all directed against the judgment and order dated 10. 8. 92 passed by Susama Chatterji, J. CO. Nos. 6113 (W) and 7023 (W) of 1988.
( 2 ) THE writ petitioners, Kutubuddin Goldar and Satyendra Nath Mondal, in the aforesaid two writ petitions, had challenged the issuance of the letter of intent dated 19. 4. 88 by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter shortend into Corporation) in favour of the respondent No. 5, Radhakrishna Roy, offering him the Retail Outlet Dealership at Malancha, District 24-Pargams, in terms thereof.
( 3 ) THE aforesaid Corporation had published an advertisement in the Bengali Daily Newspaper Ananda Bazar Patrika on 20-12-85 inviting applications from unemployed Graduates for appointment of a Dealer for Retail Outlet of their product in the area Malancha, District 24-Parganas (North), in terms thereof specifying the eligibility criteria for award of Dealership thereunder. The aforesaid two writ petitioners, the Respondent No. 5, Radhakrishna Roy (hereinafter referred to as Radhakrishna) and others had submitted applications to the Corporation therefore. The Respondent No. 4, the Oil Selection Board (East) (hereinafter shortened into Board) was entrusted to select candidate for the purpose of appointment therefore. As it appears from the affidavit-in-Opposition affirmed by Sri Arunavo Roy Mahasay on behalf of the aforesaid Board on 8. 2. 89, the Board had interviewed 19 (nineteen) candidates in all, including the two writ petitioners and Radhakrishna on 9. 12. 87. In the said interview, the highest mark was obtained by the Respondent No. 5, Radhakrishna and the second highest mark was obtained by the writ petitioner, Satyendra Nath Mondal (hereinafter referred to as Satyendra), who were empanelled by it (Board) as eligible candidates for the purpose of carrying out field investigation. In terms of the selection so made by Board a letter of intent was issued by the Corporation in favour of the said Radhakrishna by letter dated 19. 4. 88 intending to offer him the Retail Outlet Dealership at Malancha, District 24-Parganas, in terms thereof on the conditions specified therein. The grievance of both the writ petitioners (in the aforesaid two writ petitions) is that the appointment so made in favour of Radhakrishna had not been made properly, and they had accordingly prayed for consideration of their respective candidates. The learned Trial Judge upon consideration of the materials on record had clearly held that the said Radhakrishna had deliberately suppressed material facts in his relevant application, as a result of which his selection by the Board could not be sustained. The learned Trial Judge bad, accordingly, quashed the selection of Radhakrishna and had directed the Board to consider afresh the candidature of all the intending parties, including the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions, and others who had participated in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order in terms thereof for tire reasons recorded at length.
( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order so passed by the learned Trial Judge, the appellants in the relevant four Appeals before us have preferred the instant Appeals.
( 5 ) THE point emerging for consideration before us is how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in quashing the selection of the Respondent No. 5, Radhakrishna Roy, by the Board, and directing the Board to consider afresh the candidature of all the intending parties, including the writ petitioners in both the writ petitioner and others who participated, the way he did.
( 6 ) EVIDENTLY and undisputedly, the advertisement inviting applications from unemployed Graduates for award of Dealership for Retail Outlet had specified therein certain eligibility criteria for making application and for award of Dealership
