HINA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1115 · Decided: 23-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2016] I S.C.R. 1115 
HINA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal NO. 1676 OF 2016) 
FEBRUARY 23, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINDTON FALi 
NARIMAN JJ.] 
Public Distribution - Allotment of outlet of petroleum/diesel 
dealership - Rejected on the ground that the age proof provided by 
the applicant was not of the Senior Secondary School as per the 
norms, but of Higher Secondary school - Propriety of - Held: Since 
the requirement of age proof is fulfilled, rejection of allotment is 
not justified - Respondent-Corporation is directed to conduct the 
selection afresh. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The requirement of the Corporation is only a 
proof regarding the age. No doubt, certain documents are 
specified in the Eligibility Criteria which would be accepted by 
the Corporation as proof of age. In case, a copy of the Secondary 
School Leaving Certificate can be accepted as proof of age, it 
does not even strike to common sense as to why the copy of the 
Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate, duly attested, 
cannot be accepted as proof of age. The respondent-Corporation 
is directed to conduct the selection afresh, allowing the 
participation of the appellant as well along with those who have 
been considered as eligible by the Corporation. [Paras 7 and 
9](1117-D-E; 1118-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1676 
OF2016 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2012 in Writ Petition 
No. 9081 of2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 
Bench at Aurangabad 
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar for the Appellants. 
S.M. Jadhav, Anshuman, (for Mis. S.M. Jadhav & Company), 
Priya Puri, Ranjay Kumar Dubey, Vikas Bansal, Chandra Bhushan 
1115 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Prasad, Meenesh Kumar Dubey, Kaushal Yadav, B. Krishna Prasad for 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted . 
.2. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the 
second respondent-Corporation was justified in rejecting the application 
of the appellant for allotment ofretail outlet of petroleum/diesel dealership 
at location Kalamnuri in District Hingoli in the State of Maharashtra, on 
the ground that the age proof submitted by her was not of the Secondary 
School as per the norms, but of a Higher Secondary School. 
3. It is not in dispute that the appellant had submitted an attested 
copy of the School Leaving Certificate issued by Shri Shanti Vidya Mandir 
Higher Secondary School, Shiradshahpur, Hingoli, which is ofa Higher 
Secondary School. That certificate was issued by the Principal of the 
school and the appellant had produced an attested copy of the same. 
4. The High Court, in the impugned Judgment, held as under:-
'"We find that though the approach of the Corporation seems 
to be technical, however, the petitioner could have submiued 
proof of age as required by the Corporation and in 
accordance with the clauses set out in the advertisement. It 
would not be proper to direct the Corporation to add/amend 
or alter the conditions of advertisement. " 
5. The application was rejected, as already noted, on the ground 
that the appellant had not complied with the requirement in terms of 
Clause 2( c) of Eligibility Criteria. Clause 2(c) reads as under:-
"(c) Age - As on date of Application (In completed years) : 
not less than 21 years. Enclose an attested copy of either 
Matriculation or Secondary School Leaving Certificate 
indicating date of birth or identity card issued by election 
commission or PAN card or Passport or an affidavit as proof 
of age." 
6. The learned counsel for the Corporation contends that the 
requirement being attested copy of Secondary School Leaving Certificate, 
the Corporation was justified in rejecting the application since what had 
been produced before them was an attested copy of the Higher Secondary 
School Leaving Certificate. It is also submitted that in all those cases 
where the applicants had not strictly complied with the requirement as 
per the Eligibility Criteria notified by the Corporation, the Corporation 
HINA v. UNION Of INDIA & ORS. [KURIAN, J.] 
has rejected those applications. Whether the dispute pertained to the same 
issue as raised by the appellant herein is not clear. 
7. It is seen from the Eligibility Criteria, as extracted above, even 
an Affidavit was sufficient as proof of age. Be that as it may, in case, 
the copy of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.