Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 955
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. H.L. GOKHALE, & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Madurai & Another
Versus
M. Natesan
W.A.No. 223 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided On :03-03-2010
For the Appellants:Abdul Saleem, Advocate.
For the Respondent:T. Sellapandian, Edwin Jayakumar, Advocates.
Applicants must provide accurate information and establish their credentials as per the advertised norms for selection procedures.
Headnote:
LPG Distributorship - Selection Procedure - W.P.No.16426 of 2009 - The court discussed the selection procedure for LPG distributorship reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, the criteria for allotting marks, and the importance of accurate information in the application. The court emphasized the need for applicants to establish their credentials and upheld the decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent applied for LPG Distributorship reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. After initial marking and field verification, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the allotment of the distributorship.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had not provided accurate information in the application and failed to establish his credentials, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: Accuracy of information in the application, establishment of credentials, review of the earlier order.
Ratio Decidendi: Applicants must provide accurate information and establish their credentials as per the advertised norms. The court upheld the decision to dismiss the writ petition due to the respondent's failure to do so.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order passed in the review application was set aside, and the review application was dismissed. The order dismissing the writ petition remained unchanged.
H.L. Gokhale, C.J.
Heard Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned counsel in support of this appeal. Mr.T.Sellapandian, learned counsel appears for the respondent.
2. The appellants herein are the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation. They are aggrieved by the order passed by a learned Single Judge on Review Application No.150 of 2009, dated 23rd December 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge has reviewed the order, dated 02nd November 2009 passed by him on the petition filed by the respondent being W.P.No.16426 of 2009.
3. The respondent was an applicant for the LPG Distributorship at Kulasekaram in Kanyakumari District. The appellants had given the advertisement sometimes in February 2008 and thereafter the selection procedure started. The distributorship was reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. There were a good number of candidates and there was a system of selection, in which, marks were to be allotted on the basis of educational qualification, age, experience, business ability/ achievement and personality and thereafter, total marks were to be arrived at out of 30. After the initial marking was done, the field verification was to be done and thereafter the decision was to be taken.
4. In the initial marking, the respondent got in all 25.78 marks, out of which he got 3.53 marks for business ability and 1.78 marks for experience. There are other candidates who are situated in the list after him, i.e. one V.Santhi, who got 24.56 marks and then one V.P.Mohana Jeya Valli, who got 23.4 marks. The system is that after these marks are allotted, the field verification is done, the documents are checked and in the event a candidate is found not eligible or his marks in any manner go down in the field verification, the Corporation will go to the second candidate and if the second candidate fails, it will go to the third candidate. A list of these marks was published and the respondent was expecting his allotment. Inasmuch as the same was not being done, he filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus that the respondent should allot the LPG distributorship to him.
5. When the petition was heard, it was pointed out on behalf of the appellants that the respondent had not stated correct facts in the application. In the application, he had stated that he was having 15 years lease for godown, but no such lease deed was available for verification. Further, the particulars given by him about the experience were not justified. These submissions were accepted by the learned Single Judge and he dismissed the petition by his order dated 02nd November 2009.
6. The respondent applied for review. He pointed out that as far as these particulars regarding the property are concerned, they are not required for SC/ST candidates and the submissions with respect to experience were also erroneously examined. The learned Single Judge accepted these submissions and, therefore, reviewed the earlier order passed by him and consequently directed the appellants to consider the claim of the respondent for award of LPG Distributorship. Being aggrieved by that order, this appeal has been filed.
7. Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned counsel for the appellants points out that the respondent has to make an honest declaration. In the instant case, his declaration with respect to the godown was found to be not a correct declaration. That apart, the marks given for experience were on the footing that he had the particular experience that he claimed. But at the time of field investigation, when he was asked to produce the supporting documents, all that he produced was some xerox copies along with his letter dated 25th June 2009. He stated that apart from the xerox copies, no other documents were available nor did he produce any of them.
8. Now what is to be seen is that as far as the experience column is concerned, in the application the question is, Do you have experience of running or working in any of the establishment dealing in the following for
