Renu Kumari @ Renu Purvey @ Renu Prasad V. The Union Of India Through The Regional Marketing Manager Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and The State Co-Ordinator, Bihar BPCL and Krishna Devi and Kamini Devi

CWJC/1754/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Renu Kumari, the petitioner, who applied for a distributorship of petroleum products at a location called Choraut in Sitamarhi, advertised by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). The petitioner was not allowed to participate in the interview due to the absence of original documents (income tax return and PAN card) required for verification, as per the guidelines of the selection process. The petitioner contended that she did not receive the communication regarding the document requirements, but the court found no sufficient evidence to support this claim. The respondent corporation defended its decision, emphasizing adherence to the established guidelines. The court dismissed the writ application, supporting the respondent's adherence to the documented requirements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803447 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: BIRENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Arbitrary action; Distributorship; Document Verification; Interview; Petroleum products

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1754 of 2013 ====================================================== Renu Kumari @ Renu Purvey @ Renu Prasad W/O Shri Shambhu Prasad R/O Village- Choraut, Police Station- Pupri, District- Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India Through The Regional Marketing Manager Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The BPCL'), Ashiana Chamber, 3rd Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna 2. The State Co-Ordinator, Bihar BPCL, Ashiana Chamber, 3rd Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna 3. Krishna Devi W/O Shri Pawan Kumar Mandal R/O Village- Choraut, Police Station- Pupri, District- Sitamarhi 4. Kamini Devi W/O Shri Shyam Kumar Mandal R/O Village- Choraut, Police Station- Pupri, District- Sitamarhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 2 02-08-2013 Heard Mr. Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Singh for the Respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (for short ‘the Corporation’). Pursuant to the advertisement published by the Respondent-Corporation for grant of distributorship of petroleum products at advertised location(s) the petitioner became one of the applicants for the location called Choraut in the district of Sitamarhi. The outlet was meant for the candidate belonging to the open category. The date of interview for selection was fixed on 14.09.2012. The petitioner presented herself for interview along Patna High Court CWJC No.1754 of 2013 (2) dt.02-08-2013 2 / 4 2 the letter dated 22.08.2012 directing her to appear for the said interview. On verification of her documents it was found that the petitioner was not armed with the original copy of the income tax return as well as the pan card. By an endorsement thereon made on 14.9.2012 she was not permitted to take the interview. In other words, her candidature was not considered. Aggrieved thereby the present writ application has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said communication dated 22.8.2012 was not received by the petitioner and as such on her own she happened to visit the office of the Respondent Corporation when it was revealed that the interview was being held for selection of advertised location and immediately thereafter she presented herself for interview without the original copies of those documents but the respondents did not permit her to take the interview. It has been submitted that those documents were available on site and the respondents could have checked/verified. In not permitting her to take interview on the said ground they have acted arbitrarily. Mr. Sanjay Singh on the contrary submits that notice inviting application as well as brochure/guidelines under which such selection is undergone specifically contemplates that the applicant/candidate at the time of interview has to present Patna High Court CWJC No.1754 of 2013 (2) dt.02-08-2013 3 / 4 3 herself/himself along with original copy of the document furnished by the applicant failing which the applicant/candidate shall be held to be disqualified and will not be permitted to take the interviews. It is next contended that there is no material placed on record by the petitioner to support the contention made by the petitioner that the said communication dated 22.8.2012 was not delivered/received by the petitioner in time. It has thus been submitted that once the criteria/conditions have been set out and disclosed to the applicant the Respondent-Corporation could not have deviated therefrom. He therefore supports the impugned action taken by the Respondent Corporation. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. It is not the case of the petitioner that notice inviting application as well as the brochure/guidelines governing the selection process clearly contemplates such condition. It was thus known to the petitioner from before. If the petitioner defaulted in doing so the respondents were justified in not permitting the petitioner to take the interview. Coming to the next submission of the petitioner that the said communication dated 22.08. 2012 (Annexure-5) was not delivered to the petitioner, in my view, counsel for the respondents is right in his submission that Patna High Court CWJC No.1754 of 2013 (2) dt.02-08-2013 4 / 4 4 materials placed on record by the petitioner are wholly deficient to accept the said contention of the petitioner. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner was debarred from taking interview on 14.9.2012. It took more than three months to file the present writ application. There is no explanation therefor. Counsel for the respondents has stated that the process of selection has already proceeded in the meanwhile. Taking into account the aforesaid fact, this Court is not persuaded to invoke its extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction to grant the relief to the petitioner. The application is dismissed. No cost. HR/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) "