LexSMT. MOUMITA PODDAR versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 905 SMT. MOUMITA PODDAR v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6071-6072 of 2010) JULY 30, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] A B Public Distribution System - Appointment/selection of Retail Outlet Dealership of petrol - Challenged by the C applicant who was not selected - Single Judge of High Court cancelling the entire selection on account of non-observance of policy guidelines - Division Bench of High Court upheld the appointment - On appeal, held: The selection/ appointment was vitiated as the Selection Committee failed o to observe the policy guidelines as laid down in the policy circular ..,. The appellant-applicant was also not eligible for selection in view of the policy guidelines - However, setting aside of entire selection process is not justified - The proper course is to offer the dealership to the next candidate on the E panel - In view of the fact that the candidates in the panel have not challenged the selection and in view of the subsequent events that entire infrastructure has been made available and the dealership is uperating for more than five years, the selection/appointment of the dealership is not interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of F the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Adminstrative Law - Policy Guidelines - Non-observance by Selection Committee - Effect of - Subsequent events - consideration of Respondent-Corporation published notice for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership. The appellant applied for the dealership and offered to set up the dealership on the land purchased by her mother-in-law G 905 H 906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A and father-in-law and also furnished documents expressing their willingness to allow the appellant to use the land for installation of the Retail Outlet Dealership and to lease out the same to respondent No. 1 on long term basis. Respondent No. 2 also submitted her application B indicating that she had suitable site readily available for the dealership. She offered the Lease Deed. However, one of the clauses of the Lease Deed mentioned that she could not sub-let the leased out landed property. In a further supplementing Lease Agreement, it was provided c that the party had the right to create sub-tenancy. Both the above Lease Deeds were, however, not registered. After the interview of the applicants, three candidates were empanelled. Respondent No. 2 was placed at serial No. 1. The appellant was not empanelled. Letter of intent 0 was issued in favour of respondent No. 2. The same was challenged by the appellant before High Court in a writ petition. Another unsuccessful candidate also challenged the selection of respondent No. 2 in a writ petition. Both the writ petitions were allowed holding that the selection E was contrary to the applicable policy guidelines. and that the entire selection process was vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind and arbitrariness. The court also held that the Lease Deed offered by respondent No. 2 was not in existence at the time of interview but was subsequently, i.e. long after the filing of the writ petition, F manufactured to defeat the case of the appellant. Writ appeals against the same were allowed. Therefore, the instant appeals were filed. G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 From the fact3 of the case, neither the appellant nor respondent No.2 would have been eligible for any preference. Whilst the appellant had offered the undertakings given by her mother-in-law and father-in-law to make the land available on lease, respondent No.2 H was only in possession of a lease, which contained a MOUMITA PODDAR v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION 907 LTD. negative covenant. Therefore, the candidature of both, the A appellant as well as respondent No.2 co~d on~ be considered under the category that they were pre ared to make the site available. The eligibility and the rel tive merit of the candidate was clearly to be adjudged o~ the basis of the criteria contained in the policy circular dated B 4.9.2003. [Paras 22, 23] [927-A-D] 1.2 Both, on the date of the application and the date of the interview, respondent No.2 did not fall within any of the categories as laid down in Circular dated 4.9.2003. Therefore, her selection was vitiated, as the Selection C Committee has deviated from the criteria laid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.