LexSENIOR LAW MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. versus GURU SHAKTI SINGH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 919 SENIOR LAW MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION A LTD. AND ANR. V. GURU SHAKTI SINGH AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1649 of 2011) FEBRUARY 14, 2011 B [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Government contract: LPG dealership - Selection process - Propriety of - Grant of dealership to the first C respondent by appellant-company - Second candidate in the list of eligible candidates filed complaint alleging illegalities and irregularities in awarding marks by the selection committee - Thereafter the complainant died - Complaint investigated by a committee of senior officers - The D investigation revealed irregularities in the selection process - Cancellation of entire process and decision to re-interview the candidates - Writ petition by first respondent - Allowed by High Court - On appeal, held: High Court .erroneously proceeded on the basis that even though the selection E process was illegal in as much as, as the complainant had died, the irregularities were no longer relevant.and the merit panel should be accepted - High Court failed to deal with the larger issue as to .~hether the Selection Committee had acted· fairly and properly in awarding the marks and preparing the F merit panel - If the finding was that the marks were wrongly assigned to the complainant and consequently, first respondent had benefited, it would not follow that on death -Of the complainant, the irregularity in assigning marks could be brushed aside or ignored - In such selection, any illegality G or material irregularity in assigning marks in regard to any person with the intention of favouring some one or excluding s_ome one, vitiates the entire selection process - Manner of a'Ssigning marks showed a clear intention to favour the first 919 H 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 2 S.C.R. A respondent at the cost of the other applicants - High Court having recorded a finding that the appellant was satisfied about the illegality committed by the selection committee, ought to have rejected the writ petition, as the decision of the appellants to scrap the selection was reasonable and not B arbitrary - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 164H of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 06.02.2007 of the High C Cour1 of Judicature at Allahabad Bench at Lucknow in WP No. 4491 of 2009. H.K. Puri for the Appellants. P.S. Narasimha and Arvind Verma, C.D. Singh Sunny D Choudhary, Nishi and Arushi for the Respondents. E The Order of the Court was delivered by R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard. 2. The appellants (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.), issued an advertisement inviting applications for grant of LPG distributorship for Sohawal, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh. The Dealer Selection Committee constituted by the appellants interviewed the eligible candidates and declared a panel of F three candidates, on 30.3.2005, in the following order of merit: (1) Guru Shakti Singh (first respondent); (2) Sardar Mahinder Singh; and (3) Lal Rajendra Nath Singh. As per the said selection first respondent had to be granted the LPG distributorship. G 2. The second candidate in the list (Sardar Mahinder Singh) filed a complaint with the appellants, alleging illegalities and irregularities in awarding marks by the Selection Committee, resulting in the first respondent being placed as the H first in the merit panel. Shortly thereafter, the said Sardar . SR. LAW MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORP. LTD. v. 921 GURU SHAKTI SINGH [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.) I Mahinder Singh filed a. writ petition challenging the selection A process and the panel of candidates. The said writ petition filed on 4.5.2005, was withdrawn on 18.5.2005. Sometime thereafter the said Sardar Matiinder Singh died. 3. The appellants thereafter cancelled the entire selection process on 27.10.2005, and took a decision for re-interview B . the candidates. The first respondent filed a writ petition for quashing the said order dated 27 .10.2005 and seeking a direction to the appellant to issue him the letter of intent for Distributorship as he was the first in the merit panel. The said c writ petition was allowed by the impugned order dated 6.2.2.007 holding that there should be no re-interviews and the appellant should proceed with the selection as already conducted in accordance with law. The effect of the order was that the first . respondent should be granted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.