SR. DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH POA HOLDERS & ANR. versus ASHOK SHANKARLAL GWALANI

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 1125 · Decided: 14-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 9 S.C.R. 1125 
SR. DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL 
CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH POA HOLDER & ORS. 
v. 
ASHOK SHANKARLAL GWALANI 
(Civil Appeal No. 9101 of 2012) 
DECEMBER 14, 2012 
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Public Distribution - Allotment of petrol/diesel dealership 
C 
- First round of selection for allotment cancelled due to 
irregularities in the selection process - In the second round 
of selection, respondent selected - This selection also 
cancelled due to irregularities - In the third round of selection, 
candidature of the respondent rejected - Writ petition by D 
respondent challenging rejection of his candidature - High 
Court allowing the appeal, directing the company to issue 
Letter of Intent in favour of the respondent - On appeal, held: 
Decision to cancel the selection was taken by the competent 
authority - High Court ought not to have interfered with such 
E 
decision in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of 
Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226. 
Appellant-company invited applications for grant of 
petrol/diesel retail outlets (dealership) for vai:ious 
locations in the State of Maharashtra. The respondent, 
alongwith others, applied for one of the locations. In the 
first round of the selection process, 'K' was selected by 
F 
the Interview and Screening Committee. The respondent 
was placed at 2nd and 3rd position in the merit list by the 
Interview Committee and Screening Committee 
G 
respectively. On complaint, the Investigation Officer 
placed the respondent at 1st position. Ultimately the 
selection was cancelled and all the candidates were 
called for re-interview. Thus in the second round of 
1125 
H 
1126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A selection, after re-interview, the respondent was found to 
be only candidate in the merit panel. Complaints were 
lodged against the same. Inquiry Commission was 
appointed to investigate into the complaints. Writ petition 
was also filed against the company by 'K' challenging the 
B order whereby the merit list where he was declared as No. 
1 candidate was cancelled. High Court dismissed the 
petition. After inquiry, the complaints were found to have 
merit and therefore, the company again advertised for re-
interview of all the candidates. Thus in the third round of 
C selection, the Committee, before whom the applications 
of all the eligible candidates were placed, rejected the 
candidature of the respondent on the ground that 
'Relationship Affidavit' was not as per the format. 
Respondent's writ petition, challenging the rejection of 
0 his candidature was allowed by High Court. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Interview Committee, Screening 
E Committee and the Investigation Officer assessed the 
three candidates in three different groups due to which 
the position. of the candidates changed in the merit list 
prepared by the Interview Commitstee, Screening 
Committee and the Investigation Officer. The High Court 
F has not noticed and discussed the aforesaid facts and 
without discussing the further developments as taken 
place after 24.12.2008 (i.e. the date the respondent was 
placed in merit list in the second round of selection) 
directed the appellants to issue the Letter of Intent in 
favour of the respondent. Though the High Court noticed 
G the stand taken by the appellants that the 'Relationship 
Affidavit' submitted by the respondent was not as per 
format, it failed to discuss the effect of such an 
incomplete affidavit in the matter of selection. [Paras 15 
and 16] [1139-F-H; 1140-A] 
H 
SR. DIVISNL. RET. SALES MGR., 1.0.C.L. TR. POA HOLDER v. ASHOK 1127 
SHANKARLAL GW,A.LANI 
2. Generally, if an irregularity is detected in the matter 
A 
of selection or preparation of a panel, it is desirable to 
have a fresh selection instead of re-arranging the panel 
which is found to be vitiated. In the present case, the 
Authority empowered to appoint, is the competent 
authority to decide as to whether the panel should be 
B 
discarded and there should be a fresh selection in view 
of the facts. In such circumstances, the High Court under 
Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have 
interfered with the decision of the competent authority in 
canceling the selection. Accordingly, the impugned order C 
is set aside with a liberty to the Competent Authority to 
re-advertise the petrol/diesel retail o

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