No indefeasible right accrues by mere enlistment, and the vacancy should be filled through a fresh selection process.

JUDGMENT :

1. In response to an advertisement published in the daily newspaper by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’) on 30th December, 2009, the petitioner applied for being appointed as Retail Outlet Dealer for the area between Baghajatin and Ganguly Bagan on Raja S.C. Mallick Road (existing retail outlet) in the open category reserved for women.

2. According to the petitioner the application was made in the prescribed format along with all supporting documents including the valuation report of the property and income tax return for the year 2009-10 showing her income as Rs. 4,34,674/-. An interview was held on 13th May, 2010 and a panel of eligible candidates was published on 14th May, 2010.

3. Being dissatisfied with the manner of preparation of the panel the petitioner submitted a representation before the concerned authority of the Company requesting detailed breakup of the marks according to which the panel was prepared. The Company published an amended panel of selected candidates on 12th November, 2010 disclosing the breakup of the marks of the candidates. The earlier panel and the amended panel were different.

4. The petitioner submits that she has not been awarded any marks under the heading ‘fixed and movable assets’ and under the heading ‘income’. The petitioner submits that as she possessed enough fixed and movable assets she ought to have been awarded the total marks under the heading ‘fixed and movable assets’ and as her income is more than rupees three lakh per annum she is entitled to be awarded full marks under the heading ‘income’.

5. The petitioner contends that if marks were awarded under the aforesaid two headings, then she would have been the first candidate in the panel.

6. It has been contended that marks were allotted and panel was prepared contrary to the policy of the Company.

7. Being aggrieved by the act of the Company the petitioner filed representation before the Company praying for rectifying/recasting the panel in accordance with the procedure laid down in the advertisement. In response to the said representation the petitioner was intimated that the panel was prepared on the basis of the maximum marks of forty excluding the marks allocated under the parameters ‘capability to provide infrastructure and facilities’ and ‘capability to provide finance’. It was intimated that since marks obtained under the parameter ‘capability to provide finance’ was not relevant for the said vacancy, marks obtained under the said heading has not been considered.

8. The petitioner submits that the first empanelled candidate has already tendered her resignation and the candidature of the second empanelled candidate was being considered for appointment as dealer. The second empanelled candidate secured lesser marks than the petitioner out of the total 65 marks.

9. The petitioner argues that the procedure in which the candidates have been marked is in contradiction with the brochure for selection for retail outlet dealer published by the Company and also contrary to the advertisement.

10. The petitioner contends that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is over.

11. In support of the submission regarding changing the rules of the game the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bishnu Biswas & Ors. –vs- Union of India & Ors. reported in (2014) 3 WBLR (SC).

12. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents, inter alia, to cancel/withdraw and/or set aside the panel dated 12th November, 2010 and to grant retail outlet dealership in her favour.

13. The respondent Company has opposed the submissions and the prayer of the petitioner. The respondents rely upon Clause 9 of the brochure dated 1st July, 2009 for selection of petrol/diesel retail outlet dealer which deals with ‘corpus fund facilities for women’.

14. Clause 9(b) of the brochure reads as follows:

“Subject to the application and request, wi