SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Mad) 909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.Shanmugam, J.
Daisey Bai
Versus
The General Manager (TNSO) Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others
W.P.No.4948 of 2001
Decided On : 14 August 2001

Advocates:
S.Subbiah, for Petitioner.
M.S.Rajasekar and M.Sathyanarayanan, for Respondents.

Priority in appointment to be given to widows having minimum eligibility criteria.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 14-Distributor ship of L.P.G.-Appointment for-Priority to be given to widows in such appointment-Held, widows having minimum eligibility criteria must be given priority.

ORDER: Petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order in T.N.L./S/604, dated 8.12.2000 on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and direct them to award the L.P.G. distributorship to the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are stated below: The Indian Oil Corporation proposed to appoint Indane L.P.G. distributors at Nithiraivillai Village, Kanyakumari District and the same was notified in the local dailies. As per this notification, a category was reserved for women. As per the eligibility criteria prescribed for the applicants as set out in that notification, Clause 8, which is relevant for the purpose of this case, is as follows:

"8. Corporations owned or controlled by State Government/all PSUs are also eligible to apply for open category locations if they are not reserved for women only. However, restrictions relating to Annual Income, residence and multiple dealership would not be applicable to them.

For the locations reserved for women:

(a) A Co-operative Society is eligible to apply, if all members are women.

(b) ‘Other things being equal’, unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents and widows will be given priority over others."

The form relating to the rules and regulations issued by the respondent/ Corporation, while dealing with this particular category, states as follows:

"8. Priority and facilities to Women (Applicable for locations reserved for Women only):

‘Other things being equal’, unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents and widows will be given priority over others.

On their application and subject to the satisfaction of the Oil Company, unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents and widows will be provided the following by the Oil Company as per the prevalent policies:

For LPG Distributorship:

(a) A complete LPG Godown

(b) Showroom

(c) Required delivery system

(d) Two telephones without STD/ISD (Rental and call charges to be borne by the dealer)

(e) Clean Toilet

Oil Companies will also provide to the selected candidate (falling in the above category) an adequate working capital for a full operation cycle for the operation of dealership/ distributorship. Both the working capital as well as 11% per annum interest thereon will be recovered in 100 monthly instalments from the 13th month of commissioning of the dealership/ distributorship.

3. Petitioner is qualified S.S.L.C. and is aged 57 years. Claiming dealership under the category reserved for women with priority for widows, she filed an application on 15.7.2000. She was called for an interview on 20.11.2000 and according to her, she had answered all questions correctly and she was hoping that she would be able to get a favourable allotment. She was also informed that she was the best of the candidates and that she would be sent information shortly. However, to her surprise, she did not receive any intimation and on verification, she came to know that the fourth respondent, along with two other women, have been short-listed. Earlier, she filed Writ Petition No.21055 of 2000 for the issue of a writ of mandamus to select her for the dealership. During the hearing of that case, the copy of the order of selection of the fourth respondent was furnished and in view of the stand taken by the fourth respondent in her counter, petitioner has now challenged her appointment.

4. According to the petitioner, she has all the necessary qualifications, besides having a right of priority for selection. She claims that Clause 8, which provides for priority, has been overlooked by the respondents and that she is a native of Nithiraivillai, the location of the proposed distributorship agency. She further says that she has her own suitable place with godown as additional qualification. The petitioner contends that she is more qualified than the fourth respondent and is entitled to be preferred and therefore, she has prayed for the issue of a writ.

5. On beh












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top