JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-The order dated 17.3.1997 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order dated 10.2.1997 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in C.O.No. 17843 (W) of 1996 is under challenge in this appeal.

2. Indian Oil Corporation (for short the Corporation ) invited applications for appointment of a dealer relating to a retail outlet, on 22nd June, 1987. It was open to all but preference was to be given to the unemployed youth. The appellant was given the dealership as an unemployed youth. The appellant was engaged as a Trainee Professional Sales Representative with M/s. Denis Chem Lab Limited from 23.2.1987 to 3.4.1989. He wrote NIL against the relevant column relating to employment. The respondent No. 5 who had also applied for dealership filed objections before the Oil Selection Board stating that the appellant was an employee and as such he was not entitled to the benefit of preferential treatment. The Oil Selection Board prepared a panel of three candidates consisting of the appellant, respondent No. 5 and one another placing the appellant at Sr.No. 1 and the respondent No. 5 at Sr.No. 2. The respondent No. 5 filed writ application No. 19758(W) of 1995 challenging the selection of the appellant. An order was passed on 12.12.1995 in that writ petition directing the authorities of the Corporation to make a fresh consideration. Pursuant to the same, the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation, keeping in mind the finding of the Oil Selection Board, rejected the objection raised by respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5 filed second Writ Application No. 3262 of 1996. By the order dated 27.2.1996, in the said writ application direction was given to consider a certificate produced by the respondent No. 5 showing that the appellant was employed with M/s. Denis Chem Lab Limited. The relevant portion of the said order dated 27.2.1996 reads :

"Be that as it may, the spirit of the order passed by me is quite clear and only on the ground that the said certificate had not been mentioned in my order, the authorities ought not to have brushed aside the same while considering the matter. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ application with a direction upon the said officer and/or any other officer to be appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation and its authorities to reconsider the matter in the light of the certificate dated 30th October, 1995 and thereafter to pass final orders after giving the parties hearing. It is made clear that running of the retail outlet shall abide by the result of the decision of the said authorities."

3. Following the said order, the Corporation considered the matter afresh and passed the order dated 11.10.1996 cancelling the dealership given to the appellant. The appellant filed the Writ Petition C.O.No. 17843(W) of 1996 challenging the validity and correctness of the aforementioned order dated 11.10.1996 passed by the Corporation contending that the said order was perverse as the previous decision of the Corporation as well as the decision of the Oil Selection Board had not been considered; in any event, the respondent No. 5 could not have been appointed as a retail outlet dealer in his place; the appellant did not suppress any fact and even otherwise the alleged suppression could not have made any difference to the decision of the Oil Selection Board as he as a trainee was not an employee. A learned Single Judge, by the order dated 10.2.1997 after considering the rival contentions, concluded that the panel prepared by the Oil Selection Board was no more valid and in the result while upholding the cancellation of the dealership of the appellant, set aside the dealership given to the respondent No. 5. Further the Corporation was directed to take appropriate action in the matter as permissible in law. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant, the respondent No. 5 and the Corporation filed three appeals being Appeal Nos. 445, 508 and 511 of 19