Compliance with the guidelines of Indian Oil Corporation for the selection of Kisan Sewa Kendra Dealer, specifically regarding the submission of consent of co-sharers for joint ownership of land, is crucial for the consideration of the application.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.1-Union of India and Sri Devi Shanker Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4.

2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner initially challenging the result dated 12.11.2010 regarding selection of Kisan Sewa Kendra Dealer (retail outlet) at Rampuriya Awwal in District-Chitrakoot. Subsequently, petition was amended and order dated 11.04.2011 passed by General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Lucknow, was also challenged, by which, representation of the petitioner was rejected regarding non-awarding of any marks for capability to provide infrastructure (land) as well as issuance of resident certificate to respondent no.5.

3. Factual matrix of the present case is that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (respondent no.2) has issued advertisement dated 18.08.2010, inviting application form for the selection of Kisan Sewa Kendra Dealer at Rampuriya Awwal in District-Chitrakoot. In pursuance of the above advertisement, the petitioner has also submitted, application form alongwith other documents. The petitioner has also offered land for the proposed site in Plot No.370/1 M. In support of proof of availability of land, the petitioner has submitted, Khatauniof Plot No.370/1 as well as copy of sale deed dated 26.12.2007 showing purchase of 1/3rd share in Plot No.370/1. The petitioner also submitted, consent of her husband who was also co-sharer in Plot No.370/1. The Khatauni submitted by the petitioner shows that Plot No.370/1 is also co-shared by other persons including husband of the petitioner.

4. Thereafter, a complaint was received against the petitioner regarding the potentiality of her land. Thereafter, investigation was conducted regarding the potentiality of land of the petitioner. In the investigation report, it was found that the plot submitted by the petitioner was also owned by several persons including husband of the petitioner and consent of other co-sharer was not submitted alongwith the application form but submitted only after completion of interview.

5. Interview for the aforesaid selection was held on 12.11.2010 and result was declared on 12.11.2010 in which following candidates were declared qualified :

(i) Smt. Kiran Tripathi (respondent no.5);

(ii) Deepshikha Mishra and;

(iii) Sudha Devi (petitioner).

6. Result dated 12.11.2010, shows that petitioner was awarded zero marks. Therefore, that result dated 12.11.2010 was challenged by the petitioner. Against that result, petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.11.2010. In that representation petitioner not only challenged the result dated 12.11.2010 but also challenged the resident certificate issued to respondent no.5 on the ground that respondent no.5 is not resident of District-Chitrakoot. The above representation was rejected during pendency of the present petition, by order dated 11.04.2011.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plot no.370/1 was initially owned by three co-sharer namely, Sidh Gopal, Sri Jageshwar Prasad and Sri Kesan Prasad. Petitioner has purchased 1/3rd share of Sidh Gopal and constructed a boundary over it and husband of the petitioner Ashok Kumar had purchased area 9.5 biswa out of the share of Sri Jageshwar Prasad and remaining 6 biswawas purchased by Sri Bhupendra and share of Kesan Prasad was purchased by Maya Devi, Raj Shree and Meena. As the petitioner had purchased entire share of Sidh Pal which was clearly demarcated, therefore, there was no need to file consent of other co-sharers. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 11.04.2011 is erroneous and arbitrary because even otherwise he had filed consent of her husband who is co-sharer in Plot No.370/1 and, thereafter, consent of other co-sharers were filed immediately after conclusion of interview. It is further submitted that as per the relevant guidel