RITU MAHAJAN versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1126 · Decided: 09-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2009) 1 S.C.R. 1126 
RITU MAHAJAN 
V. 
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 804 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 9, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) 
Public Distribution - Allotment of petrol pump -
Reservation for woman category - Preference to be given to 
C unmarried woman above 40 years without earning parents and 
widow, other things being equal -Allotment in favour of widow 
aged 47 years as per merit list - Challenge to, by unmarried 
woman aged 28 years - Dismissal of writ petition - On appeal 
held: Unsuccessful candidate was higher in merit in 
o comparison to allottee in all the criteria thus, all factors and 
consideration cannot be said to be equal - No preference 
could be given to allottee - Capability to arrange for finance 
and provide infrastructure not a relevant criteria - Selection 
of allottee set aside - Oil Corporation to make allotment in 
E favour of the unsuccessful candidate. 
Respondent no. 1-0il Corporation 
issued 
advertisement for allotment of petrol pump. The said 
location was reserved for woman category and that the 
other things being equal, preference was to be given to 
F unmarried woman above 40 years of age without earning 
parents and widows. Appellant aged 28 years, was 
married and had a B.E. Electrical degree and in charge 
of R & D Section of a Company. Fifth respondent aged 
47 years, was a widow. She was matriculate and had 4 
G years experience in running PCO. They both along with 
others applied for allotment of petrol pump. In terms of 
the merit list, fifth respondent was selected for allotment. 
Appellant challenged the same. The Corporation and the 
Selection Board upheld the selection. Appellant filed writ 
H 
1126 
. .. 
RITU MAHAJAN v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS. 
1127 
1 
petition challenging selection of fifth respondent for A 
allotment, which was dismissed. Hence the present 
matters. 
Disposing of the matters, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The Committee constituted by this Court B 
examined the records pertaining to the allotment to the 
fifth respondent and submitted a Report. On the face of 
the Total Marks obtained, the committee found that the 
appellant comes at serial No. 1 with 112 marks, while the 
fifth respondent comes at serial No. 2 with 110 marks. On c 
examining the three categories, namely, Personality, 
Business ability and Salesmans,hip, Educational 
Qualification and General Level of Intelligence and 
General Assessment, the Committee held that the 
allotment made in favour of the fifth respondent was not D 
-· ' 
on merits. The comparison of merits is based on relevant 
records and therefore the scrutiny and conclusions 
arrived at by the Committee cannot be said to be in any 
manner arbitrary or unjustified. The Committee 
appreciated the respective merit of the two candidates 
E 
and on such appreciation came to a finding that the 
appellant is a better candidate for which it gave cogent 
and valid reasons. [Paras 14, 16 and 17) [1133-C-D; 1134-
D-H; 1135-A-D] 
1.2. On scrutinizing the records and on bare perusal 
F 
.. 
of the same, it is found that the appellant was more 
meritorious than the fifth respondent on all counts. For 
the operation of the said outlet finance was to be 
provided by the Oil Corporation, which was to be repaid 
in 100 equal monthly installments alongwith interest @ G 
11 % per annum and the first installment was to begin 
from 13th month of commissioning of dealership. Thus, 
Capability to arrange finance and Capability to provide 
Infrastructure & Facility could not have been relevant and 
material criteria. The opinion of the committee constituted 
H 
1128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A by this Court is endorsed. In the instant case, no 
preference could have been given to the fifth respondent 
as the same was to be given to unmarried women above 
40 years of age without earning parents and widows only 
on other things being equal. The appellant was higher in 
8 merit in comparison to the fifth respondent in all the 
criteria and thus all the factors and consideration cannot 
be said to be equal. [Para 18] [1135-D-G] 
1.3. As regard the objection filed by the fifth 
respondent against the report of the Committee, in view 
C of the findings and conclusions recorded, the objection 
has no merit. The report is accepted having found the 
same as valid and legal. [Para 19] [1136-A-B] 
1.4. The selection of fifth respondent for allotment of 
o Retail Outlet Dealership is set aside and t

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