Rakesh Kumar Singh V. Union of India through SCY. Oil & Natural Gas, Govt of India, New Delhi and IOC Ltd. through Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Chairman-cum-Managing Director IOC Ltd. and G.M. IOC, Bihar State Office and Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, IOC, Begusarai Divisional Office and Gauri Shankar Singh

CWJC/12273/2009

AI Insights

The case revolves around the selection process conducted by the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) for candidates to operate Kishan Seva Kendra in Pipra, Singhiya Block, Samastipur. Rakesh Kumar Singh, the petitioner, initially secured the second position in the merit list but was later disqualified in a re-selection process due to discrepancies in his income tax return documents. Singh alleged that the discrepancies were due to tampering by IOC officials and that his disqualification was a consequence of his complaints against the initial selection process. The court, however, found no merit in his allegations and upheld the disqualification based on procedural non-compliance by Singh himself.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 820931 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K D CHATTERJI
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWINI SINGH; C S SINGH
• Keywords: Disqualification; Income Tax Return; Selection process; Kishan Seva Kendra; Merit panel-cum-mark-sheet

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12273 of 2009 RAKESH KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI VINOD PRASAD SINGH R/O VILLAGE & PO-BANGARHATTA PS-SINGHIA, DISTT SAMATIPUR----------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SCY. OIL & NATURAL GAS, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE IOC LTD. THROUGH CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR REGD. OFFICE-G-9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA EAST MUMBAI 3. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR IOC LTD. ADD.G-9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA EAST MUMBAI 4. THE G.M. IOC, BIHAR STATE OFFICE LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAVAN, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA 5. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, IOC, BEGUSARAI DIVISIONAL OFFICE OPP. BARAUNI REFINERY THANA PO- BARAUNI REFINERY DISTT- BEGUSARAI 6. GAURI SHANKAR SINGH S/O SURENDRA PRASAD SINGN ADD: VILLAGE & PO- BANGRAHATTA, PS- SINGHIA, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr.Ashwini Kr. Singh, Sr.Advocate Mr. C.S.Singh,Advocate For the IOC: Mr. K.D. Chatterji, Advocate ----------- 5 5 /2/2010 Annexure-9 dated 20.8.2009 is the merit panel- cum-mark-sheet of all the candidates who came to be interviewed for selection of candidates to operate Kishan Seva Kendra at a location known as Pipra in Singhiya Block in the district of Samastipur. Petitioner wants quashing of the said panel and the selection made therein through the present writ application. The origin of the present dispute is that the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) issued an advertisement asking for eligible candidates to apply for operating Kishan Seva Kendra. The original advertisement was dated 16.11.2006. Certain amendments were brought about in the original advertisement by a subsequent advertisement dated 11.8.2007. The original advertisement as well as the amended advertisement are annexures-1 and 1/A to the writ application. - 2 - Petitioner was one of the candidates who applied for the said selection. After due scrutiny a large number of persons were called for interview including the present petitioner. On the basis of interview conducted it is alleged that Interview Board granted 71.25 marks which gave the petitioner second position in the merit list. Respondent no.6 was at serial no.1. Petitioner got aggrieved by the marking and the position awarded to him. He raised his voice against the selection process by lodging complaint or complaints which are stated to be annexure-6 series. The stand of the petitioner is that some of the allegations on due verification were found to be correct and the Corporation decided to cancel the result of the previous selection/ interview and a fresh process of selection and fresh interview came to be conducted. Petitioner was issued a call letter dated 1.8.2009 and the date fixed for interview was 20.8.2009. The outcome of the exercise of fresh interview is annexure-9 and in the said selection respondent no.6, namely, Gauri Shankar Singh was shown at serial no.1. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, he stood disqualified on the ground that there were certain discrepancies found in the attested copy of income tax return for the year 2005-06. The petitioner did not furnish original of the income tax return, so the Corporation declared him to be ineligible as it was mandatory for the candidate to produce all the original documents before the Selection Committee. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision of the - 3 - Selection Committee and has decided to challenge annexure-9 and has sought its quashing. Submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner in the second round of selection is on flimsy ground. It is same set of document or documents which were produced in the first round of interview when his candidature was considered and he was placed in the second position. Merely because he lodged complaint against the first selection process the present consequence has come to visit the petitioner. He further states that there was no fresh application for the new round of interview and the fresh interview was conducted on the basis of the earlier application and documents. He also alleges that as per the requirements of the advertisement he had filed the income tax return for the assessment year of 2006-07 but somebody played mischief with him and tampered with the assessment year in the income tax return. The year of the assessment was changed by overwriting and making it 2005-06. Petitioner’s stand is that he has initially submitted the original attested copy of the income tax return at serial no. 0303000746 dated 8.6.2006 but now the Company is insisting on production of the original copy of the tampered one which is not in existence. Yet another alternative argument is that merely because there is a failure on the part of the petitioner to produce - 4 - the original, the petitioner cannot be declared ineligible and he should have been judged within other parameters. The respondents IOC have filed their counter affidavit. They have denied any wrong doing in the selection process. The interview board has categorically recorded its opinion for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the materials on record. The petitioner did not produce the original income tax return for the relevant year 2005-06 before the Interview Committee, which was a breach of the stipulation not only contained in the advertisement but also in the interview letter contained in annexure-8. There was discrepancy between the attested copy of income tax return that the petitioner had submitted along with his application and the so called original (certified copy) that had been shown to the investigating officer and not produced before the interview board which also entails disqualification in terms of the policy of the Corporation. There is categorical submission made on behalf of the Corporation that the allegation made that there was tampering in the office of the respondents is totally misplaced and is denied. There is discrepancy between the attested copy of the income tax return submitted along with the application form and the so called original that was produced before the previous committee. A copy of the original that was shown to the investigating officer has been annexed as annexure-10 to the writ application. In the said copy the assessment year has been mentioned as 2006-07 along with the - 5 - accounting year as 2005-06, clearly written in hand. What had been filed and what is on record before the Corporation has been brought on record as annexures B and C. Submission of learned counsel for the Corporation is that there was some tampering done by the petitioner himself and he is trying to put blame on the officials of the Corporation. He realized his mistake and that is why he did not produce the so called original before the Selection Committee. The call letter of the interview which is annexure-8 has given clear instruction to candidate in bold letter that the original of the documents will have to be produced or the candidates will suffer disqualification. But despite such clear instructions and guidelines it has been violated on the part of the petitioner which led his disqualification. Effort on the part of the petitioner is to transfer the blame on the Corporation to extract himself from the disqualification which the petitioner has incurred by his own very conduct. Learned counsel for the Corporation produced the original records filed before the Corporation and the documents were perused. There is no interpolation in the income tax return which has been filed before the Company because the overwriting in the income tax return is present in the Xerox copy. In otherwords since there was interpolation in the original even the Xerox carried that interpolation. There is no fresh overwriting in any pen or ink in the return. If that be so, then the contention of the petitioner that the blame lies at the door step of the - 6 - Corporation cannot be accepted and believed. With clear stipulation both in the advertisement as well as the interview call letter laying an obligation on all the candidates to produce the original, if there was failure by the petitioner the interview board had no option but to disqualify him. Whatever the background to the dispute the Court is not convinced with the allegation and insinuation made against the selection process and therefore not inclined to interfere with Annexure-9. This writ application has no merit. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.) "