Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
B. Dakshayani – Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 26249 of 2012, 8616 of 2013, M.P. Nos. 1, 2 of 2012, 2, 3 of 2013
Decided On : 24-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1949 - Article 226 – Power of High Court to issue Certain writs - Writ Petitions have been filed by an individual who was an aspirant for a dealership of LPG cylinders from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in Palladam, Coimbatore District – Held, Case is that R4 has been carrying on dealership - Petitioner has been at liberty to apply for future calls for dealership and if found eligible may well have been awarded appears that petitioner has not done so - Learned judge allowed writ petition on facts and circumstances distinguishable from present process case was held to be opaque and not transparent impugned order was held to be non-speaking - Petitions are also dismissed.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent in Ref. No. SR:LPG:PALLADAM:INQ dated 9.5.2012 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to allow the dealership to the petitioner.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Letter No. CBE:LPG:Palladam (OSP-W) dated 23.1.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to allot the dealership to the petitioner.
1. These two Writ Petitions have been filed by an individual, who was an aspirant for a dealership of LPG cylinders from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short ‘BPCL’) in Palladam, Coimbatore District.
2. An application was made by the petitioner on 15.07.2010 in response to an advertisement issued by BPCL on 15.06.2010. After going through the process stipulated in the Notification, three individuals had been empanelled. Empanelled candidate No. 1 was one Ms. Kayalsundaar, who is arrayed as 4th respondent (R4), the second empanelled candidate was the petitioner herein and the third empanelled candidate was one Ms. V. Santhi.
3. The mark list containing the details of marks awarded in different categories in relation to all three applicants was published in the website of BPCL, as follows:
FINAL MARK SHEET
STATEMENT OF PERFORMANCE OF CANDIDATES INTERVIEWED ON 02.11.2011 AT
TERRITORY OFFICE INTERVIEW FOR DOMESTIC LPG DISTRIBUTIONSHIP AT
LOCATION - PALLADAM OSP(W), TIRUPPUR DISTRICT
TAMIL NADU
CATEGORY - OSP(W)
Conducted by:
| Chairman | Manoj K. | Empanelled Candidate-I | Kayal Sundar |
| Member-I | Madhavan D. | Empanelled Candidate-II | B. Dhakshayani |
| Member-II | Ravindranath K. | Empanelled Candidate-III | V. Santhi |
Capability to provide finance
| S. No. | Name of the candidate | Godown | Showroom | SB/FDS | Credit | Worthiness | Fixed/other assets | Other Sources of income | Education Marks | Age Marks | Experience | Business acumen/ability | Personality | Total |
| Max Marks | 25 | 10 | 18 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 15 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 100 | ||
| 1. | B. Dhakshayani |
| 25 | 10 | 18 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 12 | 2 | 2 | 3.83 | 2 | 91.83 |
| 2. | Kayal Sundaar |
| 25 | 10 | 18 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 4.33 | 2 | 92.33 |
| 3. | V. Santhi |
| 10 | 5 | 18 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 15 | 4 | 2 | 3.83 | 2 | 76.83 |
| 4. | Rajyalakshmi Poddapally | ABSENT | ||||||||||||
| Sd/-CHAIRMAN 02.11.2011 | Sd/-MEMBER-I 02.11.2011 | Sd/- MEMBER-II 02.11.2011 |
4. Upon a perusal thereof, the petitioner was of the view that the award of marks and consequent order of selection was incorrect, and she thus lodged complaints in this regard on various dates between 05.11.2011 and 20.02.2012. According to her, her selection ought to have preceded that of empanelled candidate No. 1/R4.
5. Enquiry was conducted by BPCL that appointed an Enquiry Officer. The complaints raised by the petitioner are as follows:
(b) Award of Marks for Experience willfully reduced.
(c) Award of Marks for Business Ability/Acumen illogical.
(d) Land offered for the proposed godown by the First Empanelled candidate is not suitable.”
6. To be noted, that the dealership itself was intended for a special category of persons, being “Outstanding Sports Person (Women) category.” The first empanelled candidate/R4 is, admittedly, an eligible sportswoman having participated and secured laurels in basketball and kabaddi.
7. The petitioner is a cricketer who had participated and won accolades at National level. Neither of their eli
The relevance of marks in the written test is only considered when a candidate is held to be qualified in the Skill – Proficiency / Physical Test (SPPT), and without substantial allegations of bias/m....
No indefeasible right accrues by mere enlistment, and the vacancy should be filled through a fresh selection process.
A candidate must meet all eligibility criteria to have standing in challenging an administrative decision; mere dissatisfaction does not confer legal rights.
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
