The candidature in a selection process cannot be rejected based on developments occurring after the application submission deadline, reinforcing adherence to initial terms outlined by the governing guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Three appeals have been heard analogously as they emanate out of the same impugned order dated December 19, 2018 passed in WP 30608 (W) of 2008.

2. By the impugned order learned Single Judge has granted relief to the writ petitioner regarding rejection of his candidature in the selection process initiated by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. by the advertisement dated November 18, 2006.

3. FMA 127 of 2019 has been filed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. while FMA 128 of 2019 is at the instance of successful bidders in respect of Shaktigarh and FMA 1742 of 2019 is at the instance of successful bidders of Khidderpore.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation (for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as the first appellant) has contended that, his client published advertisement for appointment of retail outlet dealer in respect of various locations, on November 18, 2006. The respondents in the first appeal had participated in such selection process.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the brochure of the oil company regarding selection of retail outlet dealership in the State of West Bengal as published on October 1, 2006. He has submitted that, in accordance with the procedure laid down in such brochure, an interview call letter dated May 18, 2007 had been issued to the writ petitioner in respect of Shaktigarh retail outlet, requesting the writ petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee on June 5, 2007.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first appellant has submitted that on June 5, 2007 interview was held. Merit panel had been prepared which was however kept in abeyance since there was difference of marks between the first and second candidate which was less than 5 per cent. A second interview letter had been issued on June 20, 2007. A second interview was conducted on July 13, 2007 amongst three candidates.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first appellant has referred to the order dated August 2, 2007 passed by the Division Bench in FMA 541 of 2007. He has contended that, the issue of three years profit was interpreted in such decision of the High Court.

8. In respect of Shaktigarh selection process, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first appellant has contended that, final list was declared on August 7, 2007. The writ petitioner was second in such merit list. Writ petitioner had made a representation dated August 10, 2007 complaining that interview regarding the selection of the Shaktigarh and Budge Budge were unfair. This representation had been replied to on December 13, 2007.

9. Selection process in respect of Shaktigarh had been challenged in WP 23300 of 2007 which was disposed of by an order dated December 20, 2007. The writ petitioners therein had been permitted to make a representation which they did on December 24, 2007.

10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first appellant has pointed out that, interview letter in respect of Khidderpore retail outlet was issued on December 27, 2007 with the result thereof being published on January 16, 2008. Result had been kept in abeyance for 30 days because of difference in marks between the first and the second candidate being less than 5 per cent. Thereafter, several steps had been taken for finalisation of the merit list in respect of Shaktigarh, Khidderpore, Budge Budge and Dunlop retail outlets.

11. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first appellant has contended that, first appellant received complaint regarding financial position of the writ petitioner on March 3, 2008. The complaint had related to municipal dues of the writ petitioner to Howrah Municipality. First appellant had entered into correspondence with Howrah Municipal Corporation. First appellant had learnt from a letter dated May 29, 2008 of Howrah Municipal Corporation that property tax of Rs. 86,09,420 was due by the writ petitioner to