Cancellation of selection based on misrepresentation of facts is justified as per the legal provision in the advertisement and the precedent set in the case of Shivkant Yadav.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17-2-2012 passed by the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC), by which the petitioner's selection as a retail outlet dealer has been cancelled.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued on 21-9-2011 inviting applications for appointment of dealers in respect of retail outlets of IOC and the petitioner did submit an application on 31-10-2011. Petitioner has further stated that as per the advertisement, certain mandatory conditions were mentioned and in the column No. 5, the total approximate capital investment was fixed as Rs. 25 lacs and as per column No. 6 the necessary working capital required was Rs. 16 lacs. It has been further stated that as per Clause 8 read with Clause 8 (b), a sum of Rs. 2 lacs was required to be deposited as security deposit after the incumbent is selected as a dealer. Petitioner has further stated that he has submitted all minute details in respect of financial capability along with the application form and after holding the process of selection, the petitioner was placed in the merit list. In fact, it was the petitioner, who was placed at Serial No. 1 of the select list prepared by the IOC. Petitioner's grievance is that later on a field investigation was carried out by the Oil Company and as per the field investigation report, the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that in the application form submitted by the petitioner on 31-10-2011 there is a mis-statement of facts as the petitioner has stated in his application form that a sum of Rs. 3 lacs was available in the account number 910010100020599, whereas, as per investigation report a sum of Rs. 9,675/- was available in the Bank account of the petitioner on the date the application was submitted by the petitioner. Similarly, in respect of another account, field investigation report reveals that a sum of Rs. 14,867/- was available on 31-10-2011, whereas a sum of Rs. 4,867/- was available in the bank account of the petitioner.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that even if the discrepancy was in existence, it has nothing to do with the process of selection. It has been further stated that as per the requirement of the advertisement a candidate was required to have a necessary working capital, determined as 16 lacs and he was also required to invest a sum of Rs. 25 lacs. It has been stated that the discrepancy, if any, will not affect the eligibility criteria at all and, therefore, as there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to misrepresent the facts, the cancellation of his candidature is bad in law. It is also been argued that the impugned order passed by the respondents is in violation of principle of natural justice as it ensues civil consequences upon the petitioner because the petitioner has made a huge investment and has created infrastructure required for setting up the dealership.

4. Petitioner has filed an additional affidavit and his contention is that the alleged mis-statement in the application form has got no nexus with the eligibility criteria and the verification of financial capability in the field investigation report has resulted in cancellation of the petitioner's selection as a dealer. Learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kalu Ram, in LPA No. 1083/2011 (O & M), decided on 7-7-2011. His contention is that in the aforesaid case also the selected candidate has declared that a sum of Rs. 6,400/- was lying in his bank account as on 26-3-2009, i.e., on the cut-off date, whereas the field investigation report reflected that a sum of