Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 1087
High Court of Judicature at Madras
T. RAJA
M. Mouhammadhou Arshadh
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Executive Director & Others
W.P. Nos. 22243 & 22244 of 2010
Decided on : 01-03-2011
For the Petitioner:M. Sundar, Advocate. For the Respondents:Abdul Saleem for M/s. Anand, Abdul & Vinoth Associates, Advocates.
Awareness of guidelines and reasonableness of age-based priority in selection process influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petitions.
Headnote:
Discrimination - Age Criteria - Circular No.P-19011/9/2001-IOC - 21 to 29, 30 to 45, 45 to 60, 60 to 65 - Guidelines challenged as violative of equality clause - Dismissal of writ petitions
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Engineering Graduate, applied for a service provider position at an Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Dealer. He was awarded 84 out of 100 marks but was not given the labour contract due to age discrimination. He challenged the guidelines issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, alleging violation of the equality clause.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was aware of the age-based marks system and guidelines before applying. It held that the guidelines giving priority to elder persons based on age were not unreasonable or arbitrary. The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that there was no merit in interfering with the guidelines issued by the respondents.
Issues: Discrimination based on age criteria, challenge to guidelines issued by Indian Oil Corporation, violation of equality clause
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's awareness of the age-based marks system and guidelines before applying, and the reasonableness of giving priority to elder persons based on age influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petitions.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. No costs were awarded.
1. The petitioner is an Engineering Graduate in Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech degree) Information Technology and he has been working as a Manager in one Sarathe Agency, an Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Dealer at 8/3, Nagore Main Road (near ONGC), Neravy Main Road, Karaikal. When there was a notice by the 1st respondent issued in the Hindu Newspaper dated 27.04.2010 for engagement of Service Provider for its Corporation Owned and Corporation Operated Retail Outlets (COCO) inviting applications from eligible individuals and other entities for being appointed as service provider for COCO outlets, the petitioner has also applied for the same. Though the petitioner, after passing through selection process was awarded 84 out of 100 marks, other candidates, who participated like the petitioner, having been awarded 86 out of 100 marks, were wrongly equated with the petitioner and as a result, the labour contract was not given to the petitioner. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that only on the age criteria he was discriminated by not providing any marks for his age of 27, when others, above 30 years of age, were allotted marks. On that basis, he also brought to the notice of the Court the guidelines issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, wherein it was mentioned that as per the eligibility criteria, any individual having minimum age of 21 years, is eligible to apply for getting service providership. As per the guidelines of 6.2.3.1, the age group, namely 21 to 29, was not awarded any marks. In the matter of allotment of awarding marks, persons at the age of 30 to 45, 45 to 60 and 60 to 65 years are awarded 10, 5 and 3 marks respectively, therefore, the petitioner being at the age of 27, was not awarded any single mark. Therefore, he contended that, since no mark is contemplated in the guidelines for the age group between 21 to 29, the same is not only arbitrary, but also violative of equality clause and on that basis, he prayed for setting aside the selection process with a further prayer to issue a direction to hold fresh enquiry.
2. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the entire guidelines challenged by the petitioner is only in line with the policy circular No.P-19011/9/2001-IOC issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Further, he contended that the petitioner, unfortunately, has not impleaded the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Therefore, for non joinder of the necessary party, namely, Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, sought for dismissing the writ petition. Secondly, it was contended that the petitioner was well aware of the guidelines issued on the basis of the circular No.160-09/2009, dated 25.09.2009, at the time of his application sent to the respondents. Having known the fact that the petitioner's category, namely, the age group of 21 to 29 are not given any mark in the advertisement, he has not challenged the selection process. But, after participating in the selection process and being not selected by not securing requisite marks, a defeated candidate cannot challenge the selection process, for the reason that when he participated in the selection process, he has accepted the terms and conditions and therefore, the petitioner may not be allowed to complain that the conditions imposed in the guidelines are unreasonable and arbitrary.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
4. It is admittedly true that the guidelines were issued to all the candidates and accordingly, marks were allotted according to their age. But, in the case of age group falling between 21 and 29, no marks were allotted. The petitioner has admitted a fact that he has downloaded the detailed guidelines pertaining to the selection of service provider for COCO's from the official website of IOC. Therefore, he was aware of the fact that under the paramet
