Ms. Sudipta Sinha V. The Union Of India through the Secretary Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas and Indian Oil Corporation Bihar State Office and Dy. General Manager (LPG) Indian Oil Corporation, Bihar State Office and Sr. Area Sales Manager Indian Oil Corporation and Shri Viswajeet Kumar and Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation

CWJC/17802/2010

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the selection process for an LPG dealership at Chandi, District-Nalanda, conducted by the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC). Ms. Sudipta Sinha, the petitioner, contested the selection of Shri Viswajeet Kumar (respondent no. 5), who was initially awarded the dealership. The dispute centered on the marks awarded during the selection process, particularly concerning the income certificates submitted by the candidates. The court examined the procedures followed by the IOC in handling complaints about the selection process and the validity of the income certificates used to assess the candidates' financial backgrounds. The court's decision emphasized adherence to the established guidelines and the proper verification of documents submitted by the candidates.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 701876 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Monika Gupta Vs. Union of India & ors., M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Jha and others, Moumita Poddar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & anr.
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANIL SINHA; AMLESH VERMA; SHAKIB AYAJ; S A NARAYAN; ALOK SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY SINHA
• Keywords: Field Investigation; Income Certificate; Letter of Intent; LPG dealership; Grievance/Complaint Redressal System

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17802 of 2010 ====================================================== Ms. Sudipta Sinha D/O Shri Harish Chandra Prasad R/O Flat No.3, SBI/44, B.H. Colony, Bhoot Nath Road, Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Distt.- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Secretary Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 2. Indian Oil Corporation Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan (5th Floor), Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna-800001 3. Dy. General Manager (LPG) Indian Oil Corporation, Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, (5th Floor), Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna-800001 4. Sr. Area Sales Manager Indian Oil Corporation, Shahi Bhawan (1st Floor), Exhibition Road, Patna-800001 5. Shri Viswajeet Kumar S/O Shri Sharda Nandan Yaadav R/O Aziz Ghat, Biharsharif, Nalanda-803101 6. Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400059 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha For the IOC : Mr. M/s Anil Kr. Sinha, Amlesh Kr. Verma & Shakib ayaj For Resp. No. 5 : M/s S.A.Narayan, Sr. Advocate & Alok Kr. Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 2 / 26 2 9 11-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation and private respondent no.5. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to quash the letter dated 18.8.2010 (Annexure-11) issued by respondent no. 3, Deputy General Manager (LPG), Indian Oil Corporation, Bihar State Office in which it is stated that evaluation by a new L-1 Committee of all the candidates has been done and it has been found that the marks of the empanelled candidates who had applied for LPG Dealership as per the earlier evaluation have remained unchanged and after examining their report by the competent authority it has been decided that there is no requirement to hold re-interview as in any case the contention about income certificate will be taken care of during Field Investigation. The petitioner seeks a further direction on the respondents to not issue Letter of Intent in favour of respondent no. 5 and in case the same has been issued to quash the same and also to ask the respondent to issue LOI in favour of the petitioner who is the next candidate in the panel. The petitioner and the respondent no. 5 among others, pursuant to advertisement dated 17.10.2007 Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 3 / 26 3 published by the respondent Corporation, applied for selection of Distributor for LPG at location Chandi, District-Nalanda. After the selection process the respondent no. 5 was placed at Sl. No. 1 in the panel and the petitioner at Sl. No. 2. The respondent no. 5 had been given 99 marks as against the petitioner having obtained 96 marks on the basis of marks given by L-1 and L-2 Committees. The L-1 Committee awards marks on the basis of application and documents submitted considering the capability to provide infrastructure, capability to provide finance, Educational Qualifications, Age, whereas the L-2 Committee gives marks on the parameters of experience, business ability/acumen and personality. The petitioner had been awarded 88.5 marks by the L-1 Committee whereas the respondent no. 5 had been awarded 89 marks and the remaining marks had been obtained by them as per the L-2 Committee. Aggrieved by the respondent no. 5 having been allotted higher marks, the petitioner filed a complaint before the respondent-authorities in terms of the Grievance/Complaint Redressal System of the respondent Corporation as laid down in the Brochure for Selection of Indane Distributors June, 2007. It was alleged, inter alia, by the petitioner that on the basis of artificial I.T. Return, the respondent No.5 has secured five marks Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 4 / 26 4 which is wrong. The said complaint after following all the due process was found to be substantiated mentioning that the complaint was similar to that made by another candidate in which findings were also to the same effect. The inference drawn in the investigation report was that the complaint having been substantiated, the first empanelled candidate mentioned in Sl. No. will get only 2 marks out of 5 for the annual income of financial year 2006-07 and with the reduction of 3 marks on the above mentioned account, the total marks secured by the 1st empanelled candidate, respondent no.5, Bishwajeet Kumar will be reduced to 96 from 99 and with the said change in the marks of first empanelled candidate, the petitioner will have the same over all marks of 96. Accordingly, the respondent no. 5 would become the second empanelled candidate as the proposed L-1 marks of the respondent no. 5 would be less than that of the petitioner and the petitioner would become the proposed first empanelled candidate. The said findings of the Grievance/complaint Redressal Authority was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 29.6.2010 stating that the complaint/allegation stated in her letter were substantiated and the selection process is vitiated and the selection process for location of Chandi will be held again and date of interview will be communicated to all eligible Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 5 / 26 5 candidates by a later date. The petitioner represented before the authorities by her letter dated 10.8.2010 stating that since her complaint has been substantiated, therefore, as the second candidate she should be appointed the Distributor. Thereafter, by letter dated 18.8.2010 the petitioner was informed that a fresh evaluation by L-1 Committee of all the candidates has been done and it has been found that marks of empanelled candidate on being re-evaluated remained unchanged in L-1 Committee report and as per the policy their report was examined by the competent authority and it has been decided that there is no requirement of holding reinterview as the income certificate shall be taken care of during field Investigation. Aggrieved by the said impugned letter dated 18.8.2010 the petitioner has come to this Court. It is also pointed out that the respondent Corporation has already issued the Letter of Intent in favour of respondent no. 5 on 23.8.2010. Earlier against the similar letter dated 29.6.2010 issued by the respondent-Corporation to respondent no. 5, he had filed CWJC No. 11239/2010 challenging the findings of the respondent-Corporation that the selection process were vitiated and the same would be held again for the location Chandi for which the date of interview will be communicated to Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 6 / 26 6 all eligible candidates by a later date. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner of the said case (present respondent no. 5) that the action of the respondent-authority was arbitrary and unjustified as they had enquired into the complaint behind the back of the petitioner who had been made first candidate in the panel. The writ application was dismissed by this Court holding that it was not a case where selection process itself has been cancelled and the petitioner will have full opportunity of presenting his case at the fresh interview which the authorities have intimated by the impugned letter dated 29.6.2010 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is evident from the internal documents of the respondent- Corporation with respect to the investigation into the complaint and subsequent action taken, which the petitioner had obtained by an RTI application, that the Grievance/Complaint Redressal Authority had clearly held that the petitioner would become proposed first empanelled candidate after reduction of 3 marks taken for financial year 2006-07 of respondent no. 5 and though the total proposed revised marks of the petitioner and respondent no. 5 would be the same, i.e., 96 marks, the petitioner having obtained more marks at L-1 stage would become the first empanelled candidate. It is further pointed out by him that in the Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 7 / 26 7 notes put up by the authorities in the matter a clear reference was made to the policy decision of the Corporation that in case of two or more applicants securing same marks then the applicant who secured more marks at L-1 stage shall be preferred among such persons in the merit panel and thus the petitioner would become the first empanelled candidate having secured 87 marks at L-1 stage as against the respondent no. 5 who having secured 86 marks would become the second empanelled candidate and it was, accordingly, recommended to proceed for conducting field investigation with respect to the petitioner. The matter was then put up before the higher authorities who while concurring with the findings of the investigation and the recommendation of SLM(S)/B&O in the case proposed that a show cause may be issued to the first empanelled candidate to give him an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Thereafter it appears from the notes that a show cause was issued and reply to the show cause of the respondent no. 5 was submitted before the SAM, Patna who submitted the details to B & O and on reply of show cause the details were reinvestigated by the Investigating Officer and as per the final outcome of the investigation, it was recommended by the I.O. that the Selection Committee wrongly awarded marks as against the agriculture income certificate Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 8 / 26 8 submitted by the first empanelled candidate and the income certificate of agriculture resubmitted by the candidate after the date of application should not be the basis of awarding marks and therefore it was recommended for necessary approval of what had been proposed earlier. The next senior Officer agreed with the recommendation of SLM(S) in view of the findings of the investigation and referred the file to the G.M., B& O for approval. However, the G.M., B & O did not agree with the views of the officers stating that in this case the selection process itself is vitiated since the panel is getting changed on account of wrong marks awarded by L-1 Committee and there is every possibility of the L-1 Committee having made similar mistakes in case of other candidates also. Therefore, fresh L-1 and L-2 of all the candidates be organized for fair selection and bringing transparency in the system. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the GM having come to the conclusion that there is possibility of L-1 Committee having committed similar mistakes in the case of other candidates, he could not have directed for fresh L-1 of all candidates including the respondent no. 5 in whose case he did not express any doubts in the findings of the Investigation Officer; thus at best the case of the candidates other Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 9 / 26 9 than the respondent No. 5 could have been reconsidered as to whether correct marks have been allotted by the L-1 Committee and there was no occasion for the G.M. to have directed a fresh L-1 committee with respect to respondent No. 5 also since there was an accepted complaint with respect to him. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the same was done, as also alleged by the petitioner in her representation, in order to arrive at a different conclusion from the investigation report so as to benefit the respondent no. 5, which has actually been done. It is also contended by learned counsel that in terms of the Brochure for Selection of Indane Distributors, June 2007 it has been clearly laid down that in case of established complaint against the first empanelled candidate, action will be taken with regard to appointment of the next candidate in the merit panel and there is no necessity for any comparative estimate of the marks to be given to respondent no. 5 who stood disqualified from consideration in terms of Clause 22.4.2 of the Guidelines. Thus, the moment the investigation report of the Grievance/Complaint Redressal authority had been accepted by the respondents officials of the Indian Oil Corporation, and there is nothing on the record to show that there was any disagreement Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 10 / 26 10 with the said findings, the respondents ought to have acted in terms of Clause 22.4.2 and action ought to have been taken for appointment of the petitioner as the Distributor being the next candidate in the merit panel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the action of the respondents in relying upon the policy decision dated 29.4.2010 which, it is submitted, could not have been applied by the respondents with respect to the present selection process which was pursuant to an advertisement dated 17.10.2007 in which the previous guidelines alone would be applied, particularly the guidelines laid down in the Brochure for Selection of Indane Distributor, June 2007. On the merits also learned counsel for the petitioner points to the application of the petitioner on the record and the income certificate dated 19.11.2007 issued by the Circle Officer, Biharsharif to Priti Kumari, wife of respondent no. 5 in which it is clearly stated that the total income of her father/guardian received from agriculture is Rs. 3,10,000/- and further mentions that the total number of members in the family is 14 including 8 adults and 6 minors. It is thus submitted by learned counsel that the said income certificate was not that of the spouse of respondent no.5 and was sufficient to hold that the Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 11 / 26 11 complaint filed by her was established. It is also submitted by learned counsel that no reliance could have been placed upon any subsequent explanation dated 26.12.2009 having been obtained from the Circle Officer in this regard as to the income being that of the wife of respondent no.5. In fact, it is pointed out by learned counsel that the SDO, Biharsharif (Nalanda) in a proceeding initiated on the application dated 4.7.2011 of the petitioner, after getting the inquiries made and after hearing both the parties, had come to the conclusion that the land on the basis of which the income certificate of Rs. 3,10,000/- had been issued in favour of Priti Kumari, wife of respondent no. 5, is in fact, part of the ancestral property of respondent no. 5 which he had obtained in an alleged family partition in the year 2005 and there was nothing on the record to show that Priti Kumari was entitled to treat the same legally as her own income and he, accordingly, concluded that the income from the said property was not that of Priti Kumari but that of respondent no.5. It is thus, submitted by learned counsel that there being no statement in the application that the alleged agriculture income of Rs. 3,10,000/- was that of the respondent no.5, no benefit can be derived by respondent no. 5 as the same was not shown in the application of respondent no. 5 as his income. Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 12 / 26 12 In this regard learned counsel further submits that in the application form it was mandatory for an applicant who was paying income tax, to attach income tax return and since the respondent no. 5 was not showing such agricultural income in his income tax return, he had no option but to take recourse to showing the agricultural income as the income of his wife. It is further submitted by learned counsel that even the so called agricultural income being the income of respondent no. 5 cannot be easily accepted as the entire conclusion in that regard is only based upon a so called oral partition having taken place in the year 2005 without any supporting documents in the form of mutation of the lands, etc., in the name of respondent no.5 as it is clearly stated in the order of the SDO that the land was recorded in the name of the grand mother of respondent no.5. In this regard learned counsel also refers to the anxiety of the authorities of the respondent-Corporation to somehow or the other allot the distributorship in favour of respondent no. 5 as in great haste the LOI has been issued on 23.8.2010 within five days of the letter having been communicated regarding the fresh evaluation. It is pointed out that on the same date, i.e., 18.8.2010 letter was sent to the Circle Officer for verification of the income certificate dated 19.11.2007 Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 13 / 26 13 and the verification itself was received on the very next date on 19.8.2010 and thereafter the LOI was issued on 23.8.2010. It is submitted that even the field investigation was conducted in a manner unbecoming of the respondent-authorities showing unfairness as they did not even examine as to whether the agricultural income as shown was of any land which belonged to the wife of respondent no.5. It is submitted that in the order dated 25.8.2011 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, on the basis of enquiry directed by him to be made by an Executive Magistrate, Biharsharif regarding the land in question and other documents on the record it was found that the land in question is recorded in the Register-II in the name of Smt. Gango Devi, the grand mother of respondent no.5 and Malguzari receipt has also been issued in the name of his grand mother till the year 2007-08 and thus it is doubtful that the land in question belongs to the respondent no. 5 and therefore the income also cannot be said to be that of the respondent no.5. Learned counsel also submits that a false plea was taken by respondent no. 5 in the previous writ application that there had been violation of principles of natural justice in the verification of complaint against him as it is evident from the materials on the record that not only show cause was Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 14 / 26 14 issued to him in the said matter but the matter was reinvestigated after receiving his reply to the show case and the same findings were arrived at. In support of his stand learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Monika Gupta Vs. Union of India & ors. (2010) 6 SCC 574, in paras 21 and 22 of which it has been laid down as follows:- “21, From the above analysis of the application forms and documents filed by Respondent no.4, it is clear that the Selection Committee did not commit any error by awarding “zero” marks to her under the heading “capability to provide land and infrastructure for godown and showroom”. As a corollary, we hold that the decision of Respondent 3 to cancel the panel/merit list on the ground that the Selection Committee had erred in not awarding 30 marks to Respondent 4 under the heading “infrastructure” was legally unsustainable. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court failed to notice that in Para 17 of the application form, Respondent 4 had not indicated the availability of land for godown and/or showroom and that in view of the language of Para 8 of the brochure, the Selection Committee had no option but to ignore affidavit dated 9.3.2004 of Ramnath, son of Shri Janki Singh and copy of sale deed dated 9.3.2004 executed by Shri Shivnath Singh in favour of Shri Rajesh Kumar Gangwar (husband of Respondent 4) for the purpose of awarding marks. 22. We have no doubt that if the Division Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 15 / 26 15 Bench had summoned the relevant records and perused the same, it would have discovered that the application of Respondent 4 was laconic in material respects and the Selection Committee had rightly awarded zero marks to her under the heading “infrastructure”. In any case, we are convinced that Respondent 3 committed serious error by recording a finding that Respondent 4 was entitled to 30 marks under the heading “infrastructure”. Learned counsel also relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Jha and others: 2012 (2) PLJR 783, in paras 9 and 10 of which it has been held as follows:- “9. We are of the opinion that the Corporation being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is supposed to act fairly, reasonably and uniformly and has to be objective in its approach. Once the standard is set out in the advertisement, the Corporation has to adhere to the said standard without any variation. In case, the Corporation allows any alteration the same will amount to subjective approach which is frowned upon by the Courts time and again. To remain objective the Corporation is required to adhere to the standards mentioned in the advertisement. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the application made by the writ petitioner was not in conformation with the requirements mentioned in the advertisement. In our opinion, the Corporation was justified in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner. 10. The learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the decision of the Corporation Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 16 / 26 16 which was taken in consonance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement. Besides; may be, in the present case it was a mere typographical error. However, there might be a case of mischief or misrepresentation also. It is difficult to draw a line where an error ends and a mischief or misrepresentation begins. The best way to avoid discrimination is strict adherence to the standards mentioned in the advertisement.” Learned counsel also relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Moumita Poddar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & anr.: (2010) 9 SCC 291, in para-41 of which it has been held as follows:- “41. Having said all that, we may now consider the question as to whether it was necessary for the learned Single Judge to quash the entire selection. We are of the considered opinion, that in the peculiar facts of this case, the problem which in fact, had to be viewed pragmatically. The learned Single Judge not only failed to take note of the ground realities, but ignored the relevant clauses of the Policy Circular dated 4.9.2003. Under the aforesaid circular, upon the selection and appointment of Respondent 2 being declared illegal, the entire selection could not have been held to be vitiated. In such circumstances, the letter of intent would be issued to the next candidate in the panel of three, in terms of Clause 5.4. This clause specifically provides that if the letter of intent is cancelled for any reason, it will be given to the next candidate in the merit list. In this case, even such an eventuality would not have arisen, as the candidates at Nos. 2 and 3 were not the writ petitioners before the High Court. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge needlessly set aside the entire selection. At the same time the Division Bench Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 17 / 26 17 also committed an error of law, in upholding the selection of Respondent 2.” Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 on the other hand submits that the Letter of Intent has rightly been issued in favour of respondent no.5 as he had shown an agricultural income in his application and even if the same is treated as not the income of the wife of respondent no. 5 but that of respondent no. 5, the same cannot have any effect on the ultimate marks that have been allotted to the respondent no.5. It is urged by learned counsel that if the income of husband is shown as that of the wife the same cannot disqualify in view of the definition of family given in the advertisement and the Brochure which includes the spouse of the applicant. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the income certificate dated 19.11.2007 cannot be held against the respondent no. 5 as they having done their duty by applying for income certificate in the name of the wife, if the authorities of the State issued an income certificate on a prescribed proforma and did not cancel out certain irrelevant part while issuing the income certificate in the name of the person concerned, in this case the wife of respondent no.5, then for such negligent action of the revenue authorities, the respondent no. 5 cannot be held Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 18 / 26 18 responsible. It is urged that the income certificate ought to be seen broadly in the context of the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with his application in which the agricultural income of the wife was shown as Rs. 3,10,000/- and is also borne out from the subsequent clarification dated 26.12.2009 issued by the Circle Officer, Biharsharif. It is in fact submitted by learned counsel that once the income has been declared then the authorities must proceed on the basis of such declaration in the application form and the veracity of the same should only be looked into in the field verification which is made after the merit panel is prepared and the Letter of Intent is issued. In this regard learned counsel submits that other candidates have also submitted income certificates issued by the Circle Officer and in each case it is in the same proforma and thus the same should not be held against the respondent no. 5. It is also submitted by learned counsel that income from agriculture having been found as that of respondent no. 5 even if the order dated 25.8.2011 of the SDO, Biharsharif is taken into consideration, then the same does not make any difference to the overall family income as it is not a case that income of someone else has been shown as the income of respondent no.5. Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 19 / 26 19 Learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation, on the specific query put by the Court as to how the guidelines of 2010 can be applied to a selection process pursuant to advertisement of the year 2007, fairly admits that the 2010 guidelines cannot be applicable in the present matter. However, he points out that under the advertisement, the application and the Brochure for Selection in which the guidelines have been laid down, the authorities are not required to look into the income certificate at all and all they are to see are the statements made in the application followed by the affidavit of income produced by the candidate and the allocation of marks by L-1 Committee is to be made solely on that ground. It is only thereafter at the stage of field investigation report that the matter is to be verified and for the said reason the fresh L-1 Committee had found that the marks obtained by the first empanelled candidate was justified and accordingly the Letter of Intent was issued in favour of respondent no. 5 after due field verification. Learned counsel also relies upon Section 21 of the General Clauses Act which provides as follows:- “Power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws.- Where, by any Central Act or Regulations a power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 20 / 26 20 includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued.” It is thus submitted by learned counsel on the strength of the said provision that it is open to the authorities to issue fresh notifications, orders and rules, etc. in the matter of selection of dealers. Learned counsel has also sought to justify the action of the respondent- General Manager directing fresh L- 1 and L-2 of all eligible candidates as the selection process itself was found to be vitiated on account of wrong marking by the original L-1 Committee. In reply learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was for the respondent no. 5 to have submitted a proper income certificate and if there was any defect in such certificate issued by the Circle Officer, the same could have been easily rectified before submission along with the application form. Learned counsel further submits that the marks regarding income could not have been given without looking into the income certificate which had been produced and it cannot be held that such certificates are to be ignored even when they are filed with original application merely because an affidavit of income Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 21 / 26 21 along with the application has been filed by the applicant. It is also the contention of learned counsel that in the present matter, the respondent no. 5 has wrongly tried to misrepresent that the agricultural income belonged to his wife when it was not so and thus for the said reason his application ought to have been rejected and the next person in the panel, namely, the petitioner ought to have been issued the LOI. From a consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on the record it is evident that the respondents have not proceeded in the matter in terms of the guidelines laid down in the Brochure for Selection of Indane Distributors June 2007. It is clarified at this stage itself that once the selection process is started pursuant to certain rules and guidelines laid down by the authorities then the authorities are bound to follow the same and it is not open to proceed in the said selection process on the basis of any future circular that may be issued by the authorities. It is thus, evident that the authorities could not have relied upon the subsequent policy decision dated 29.4.2010 in taking a decision in the present matter. This Court finds sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once the Grievance/Complaint Redressal System has been laid down then Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 22 / 26 22 the authorities are obliged to act in terms of the same. Under Clause 22.4.2 it has been clearly provided that in case of established complaint against the empanelled candidate, action will be taken with regard to appointment of next candidate in the merit panel. In the present matter the Grievance/Complaint Redressal authorities had given a clear finding that the complaint made by the petitioner with respect to respondent no. 5 was substantiated. In the entire materials on the record this Court does not find even a whisper that the higher authorities have disagreed with the said finding of the Grievance/ Complaint Redressal authorities/ Investigating Officer of the complaint. That being so, prima facie, the authorities ought to have acted on the established complaint in terms of Clause 22.4.2 which is quoted below:- “22.4.2. Established complaint In case of established complaint against the empanelled candidate, action will be taken with regard to appointment of the next candidate in the merit panel. In case of established complaints against Oil Company Officers action will be taken against the concerned officials as per the conduct rules.” Thus, the complaint against the first empanelled candidate, respondent no. 5, having been established Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 23 / 26 23 action ought to have been taken with regard to appointment of the next candidate in the merit panel, namely, the petitioner. Even if the best possible view is taken and it is held that the income certificate was not a misrepresentation then at best the procedure recommended by the authorities subordinate to the G.M. of the Indian Oil Corporation ought to have been followed and considering the marks obtained by the petitioner and respondent no. 5 after omitting the marks for income certificate on the basis of agriculture income of wife of respondent no.5, the petitioner ought to have been selected. This Court also finds that the decision of the General Manager in the present matter was wholly irrational and cannot be justified for coming to the conclusion that the selection process itself is vitiated only on the ground that the panel is getting changed on account of wrong marking by L-1 Committee. In fact, he clearly noted that there is every possibility of L-1 Committee having committed similar mistakes in case of other candidates. If that was his conclusion and since he did not disagree with the findings of the Grievance/Complaint Redressal authority/Investigating Officer, he could have only recommended the application and documents of the other candidates apart from respondent no. 5 to be reexamined for the purpose of finding out Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 24 / 26 24 as to whether a similar mistake has been committed. There was no justification for getting the application and documents of the respondent no. 5 also reevaluated by a fresh L-1 Committee. Contrary to the statement made in his order that the same would be necessary for fair selection and bringing transparency in the system, it appears to be an attempt to get over the findings of the Grievance/Complaint Redressal authority/Investigating Officer and reiterate what was done by the earlier L-1 Committee. This appears to be the situation all the more in view of the manner in which the so called field investigation was carried out by the respondent-authorities and the LOI was issued in favour of the respondent no. 5; nothing could have been more perfunctory than such field investigation after the finding that had been recorded on the complaint of the petitioner and others. It is evident from the materials that have now come on the record that so far as the revenue records are concerned, the lands are not recorded in the name of even respondent no. 5 even though an oral partition of respondent no. 5 and his family members as alleged and particulars regarding oral partition (Yaddast Batwara) of the year 2005 are shown. As a matter of fact, in the revenue records it is the name of grand mother of the respondent no. 5 which is recorded, in whose name Malguzari receipt continued to Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 25 / 26 25 be issued till 2007-08. It is thus evident from the aforesaid that at the very least the agricultural income that was shown as that of the wife of respondent no. 5 was not of his wife. That being the position the same could not have been taken into consideration as the case of the respondent no. 5 in his application was clearly that it was the agricultural income of his wife. In the guideline regarding selection as also the advertisement it is clear that the case of the candidates should be examined on the basis of the statements made in the application; the same has been reiterated by this Court in the Division Bench Judgment in Union of India Vs. Raj Kumar Jha (supra). It was thus for the respondent no. 5 to have been careful in filing his application and the certificate enclosed with the said application. He cannot shift the blame on the land Revenue authorities for the manner in which they issued certificate dated 19.11.2007 since nothing prevented the respondent no. 5 to have first examined the certificate as to whether it correctly stated the facts which he wanted to state. In any case, the certificate is not only formally inaccurate but also inaccurate in material respect as there is no such income of Rs. 3,10,000/- from agriculture of the wife of the respondent no.5. Patna High Court CWJC No.17802 of 2010 (9) dt.11-01-2013 26 / 26 26 Thus, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondents have acted wrongly in the matter of issuing LOI in favour of respondent no.5. The LOI issued in favour of respondent no. 5 is, accordingly, quashed and the respondents are directed to issue the LOI in favour of the petitioner. Let the same be done within a period of two months from today after proper verification in accordance with law, rules and guidelines. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. S.Pandey/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) "