Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
A.A. Sayed, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, JJ.
Tejinder Goyal - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No.7816 of 2021
Decided On : 05-01-2023
Right to Information Act, 2005 – Selection Process - Civil Appeal – Declaration of petitioner – Petitioner was declared successful in selection process undertaken by respondent Nos.2 and 3 Oil Marketing company for appointment of Service Provider in a Corporation Owned and Corporation Operated retail outlet – Letter of Intent was issued to petitioner – He completed all formalities required at his end in terms of Letter of Intent – Despite, Letter of Appointment was not issued to him, hence, petition – Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had arbitrarily and illegally did not take selection process for selection of Service Provider in COCO Retail Outlet, in terms of 2020 guidelines to its logical conclusion. [Para 6]
Finding of the Court: Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has neither disputed factual position of case nor it is his submission that in given facts of case, new guidelines framed by OMCs could have been applied retrospectively to selection process undertaken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under then applicable policy guidelines framed – Leaned Deputy Solicitor General of India has also stated obvious that MoP & NG had not even directed OMCs to frame fresh guidelines rather OMCs were directed to ensure fair selection and transparency in the process of appointment of Service Providers for COCO Retail Outlets. that Ministry had directed OMCs that while deciding on selection of Service Provider ship for COCO ROs, weightage of interview should not be more than 20% as provided in extant policy guidelines – In view of above discussion, it becomes apparent that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had arbitrarily and illegally did not take selection process for selection of Service Provider in COCO Retail Outlet, Nalagarh, District Solan initiated in terms of 2020 guidelines to its logical conclusion.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
[Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.]
1. Petitioner was declared successful in the selection process undertaken by respondent Nos.2 and 3 the Oil Marketing company for appointment of Service Provider in a Corporation Owned and Corporation Operated retail outlet. The Letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner. He completed all the formalities required at his end in terms of the Letter of Intent. Despite this, the Letter of Appointment was not issued to him, hence, the petition.
2. Facts: -
2(i) Respondent Nos.2 and 3-The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) issued an advertisement on 12.08.2020 for engagement of Service Provider for its Corporation Owned and Corporation Operated (COCO) Retail Outlet at Nalagargh, District Solan, H.P. The selection and appointment was to be made in terms of guidelines/brochure dated 31.03.2020 (Annexure P-2) being followed by all Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs). The petitioner applied for COCO Retail Outlet on 10.09.2020. He qualified for the interview. The interview letter was issued to him on 16.02.2021 (Annexure P-3). Interview was held on 05.03.2021. The result was declared the same day vide Annexure P-4, wherein the petitioner scored highest marks. On 08.03.2021 (Annexure P-5), respondents declared the petitioner selected as Service Provider for the location in question. The Letter of Intent (LOI) (proposed award of contract) as Service Provider for COCO Retail Outlet at Nalagarh, District Solan, was issued to the petitioner on 05.07.2021 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner completed the formalities at his end required in terms of the LOI. He furnished bank guarantee of Rs.70,00,000/- on 03.08.2021 (Annexure P-10). He also applied and got himself a GST registration number on 05.08.2021 (Annexure P-11). The petitioner also informed the respondents on 18.08.2021 (Annexure P-13) that apart from furnishing the bank guarantee and obtaining the GST registration certificate, he had also arranged requisite manpower for running the Retail Outlet.
2(ii) The petitioner sent communications to the respondents on 18.08.2021 and 06.10.2021, requesting them to complete the formalities at their end to enable him to commence the retail outlet operations as he had statedly started incurring revenue losses. Respondent OMC through its response dated 22.02.2021 (Annexure P-18), informed that “in the cases where LOI is issued but LOA and Agreement is not yet signed with COCO Service Provider, in such cases OMCs have decided to put on hold the selection process of COCO Service Provider……..” The decision of the respondents to put on hold petitioner’s selection as COCO Service Provider prompted him to institute the present petition on 09.12.2021, seeking directions to the respondents to hand him over the COCO Retail Outlet mentioned in the LOI.
Contentions & Analysis
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the case record.
4. The facts mentioned in para-2 above are not in dispute. In response to the advertisement issued by the respondent-HPCL on 12.08.2020, the petitioner participated in the selection process. He was interviewed on 05.03.2021. The result was declared on 08.03.2021. The petitioner was declared selected as Service Provider for COCO Retail Outlet Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The first contention of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is that mere declaration of petitioner’s selection as Service Provider for the COCO Retail Outlet at Nalagarh, would not bestow any right upon him to be appointed as a Service Provider. Following clause from the selection letter issued in favour of petitioner on 08.03.2021 (Annexure P-5) was pressed into service.
We find from the record that things did not remain static at the stage of declaration of result. The petitioner’s selection on 08.03.20
OMCs were directed to ensure fair selection and transparency in process of appointment of Service Providers for COCO Retail Outlets.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the policy decision dated 21.12.2006 in the appointment of a dealer for the petrol pump. The court's decision emphasized the val....
Judicial review is justified when administrative decisions lack transparency and fairness in adherence to established procedural guidelines.
The rejection of an LPG distributorship candidature based on discrepancies identified during the Field Verification of Credentials is valid, and principles of natural justice are not violated if the ....
LPG distributorship - Advertisement - If any statement made by the applicant in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application at any....
Point of Law : Applications for selection of regular LPG distributorships were invited in April, 2011 by BPCL. One of the eligibility criteria was that the applicant should own a plot of land of adeq....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
