Anita Devi v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors

order dated 30.11.2010 is reproduced as under: "This has reference to the re-interview conducted on

24.12.2009 for the subject location and results displayed on 24.12.2009.subsequently complaint was received against the above selection. One of the complaints against thefirst empanelled candidate was found substantiated for violation of multiple dealership norms. Also one more complaints for award of lesser marks on education for one of the LPA IMos. 664/2015, 720/2015 and 841/2015 Page5 of 9 candidate was substantiated, hence competent authority had ordered cancellation of earlier panel and re-evaluation of marks awarded for document based portion for all eligible candidates i.e. who had appeared for interview for preparation offresh merit panel."

¶13On the basis of representation of Anita Devi dated 10.12.2010, the respondent/IOCL conducted investigation and found that the certificate of experience submitted by her was false. The relevant para of the communication dated 11.03.2011 is reproduced hereunder : "1. It could not be established that Smt. Anita Devi w/o Shri Dilip kumar who has applied for Indian Oil retail outlet dealership at Nand Nagri, Delhi is the same Smt. Anita Devi w/o Shri Dilip Kumar, who is an existing dealer of M/s. Sidharth Filing station, Doraha.

¶2You had submitted a certificate dated 05.10.2007 alongwith your application for the said location claiming experience of working at M/s. Sidharth Filing Station, Doraha for past three years. However, it has been established that the above retail outlet Le. M/s Sidharth Filing Station, Doraha was commissioned by M/s. HPCL only on 10.10.2006. Thus the experience certificate is false as the said RO was in existence onlyfor one year (approx) as on date ofissuance ofexperience certificate. "

¶14The investigation carried out by the lOCL revealed that infact there were two applicants with identical names, name of the husband, date of birth, village address and studied in the same institution, but, copies of the certificates being Caste, High School, Graduation, Post-Graduation were different. The photograph on the application forms were also different.

¶15Record also shows that the representation dated 10.04.2011 was made by Anita Devi when the second order dated

11.03.2011 was communicated to her as per which the committee of lOCL has sustained the de-empanelment order dated 30.11.2010 though on the ground that Anita Devi did not possess the requisiteexperienceat the time of filing of application.

¶16Learned counsel for the appellant/Anita Devi-I contended that no notice was served to her before the issuance of the aforesaid second order of the lOCL dated 11.03.2011. Anita Devi-I claimed that she obtained the experience certificatefrom M/s SidharthFiling Stationfor a period of three years. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent/Anju Kumari claimed that Anita Devi did not possess the requisite experience as M/s Sidharth Filing Station was commissioned by M/s. HPCL only on

10.10.2006 and thus was in existence only for one year (approx) as on date of issuance of experience certificate. 17; At this juncture, we are of the opinion that the issue of genuineness of the certificate is a disputed fact and thus we are in affirmity with the order of the learned Single Judge that the said issue be examined and decided by the committee of lOCL. The competent authority should have only come to the conclusion that the experience certificate dated

05.10.2007 was false after giving Anita Devi-I a reasonable opportunity to be heard especially when she has also stated before the writ court that she has relevant material to explain her requisite experience for the candidature and further that the certificate is genuine. Having said so, now to determine whether Anju Kumari possessed a valid post-Graduate Degree or not is also question of fact and needs to be looked into by the respondent/IOCL.

¶18Feeling aggrieved by the orders impugned, the learned counsel for the appellant/Anita Devi-I submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition Anju Kumari should not have been permitted to run the retail outlet dealership, however, this contention cannot be accepted. During the pendency of the writ petition in question, the order of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited being an administrative order in force held that the experience certificate tendered by Anita Devi-I was false and the candidature of Anju Kumari was held to be successful. We are, therefore, in consonance with the view of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C). No. 6870/2012 permitting Anju Kumari to hold the said dealership until respondent/IOCL further investigates after hearing both the parties as to who amongst them deserve the candidature.

¶19As far as the contention of the appellant that the other writ petitions were not barred by Section 10 and 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is concerned, we find no force in this contention. We are of the considered view, that the prayer seeking restraining Anju Kumari from continuing the dealership during the pendency of the writ ought to have been raised earlier. The period by which the investigation had to be completed was submitted to be three months by the respondent/IOCL before the learned Single Judge and therefore is reiterated herein that this exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶20. Resultantly, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the orders under appeals and the said appeals are accordingly dismissed. CM No.21548/2015 in LPA 664/2015, CM Nos.23839/2015, 23842/2015, 23844/2015 in LPA 720/2015 & CM No.27858/2015 in LPA 841/2015 In view of the order passed above, the applications are rendered infructuous. SANGKCA-'DHIIWRA

SEHGAL, J. APRIlI ,2017 gr CfflEF JUSTICE

$--9-11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DEMI Judgmentpronounced on April, 2017 + LPA 664/2015 & CM No.21548/2015 ANITADEVI Appellant Versus INDIANOIL CORPORATIONLTD & ORS Respondents + LPA 720/2015 & CM Nos.23839/2015, 23842/2015 & 23844/2015 ANJU KUMARI Appellant Versus INDIANOIL CORPORATIONLTD & ORS Respondents + LPA 841/2015 & CMNo.27858/2015 ANITADEVI Appellant Versus INDIANOIL CORPORATIONLTD & ORS Respondents Present ; Mr. Atul Bandhu, Advocate for the appellant in LPA 664/2015 and in LPA 841/2015 and for the respondent(Anita Devi) in LPA 720/2015. Ms. Mala Narayan, Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Menon, Advocate for lOCL. Mr. G. S. Mani, Advocate with Mr. A. Arokiara, Advocate for the applicant in C.M. No. 27858/2015 in LPA 841/2015. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL. J. 1. By way of this common judgment, we are disposing of the present three appeals, LPA664/2015 is preferred against the judgment dated 07.09.2015passed in WP(C) 8032/2015,LPA720/2015is preferred against the judgment dated 06.07.2015 passed in W.P(C) 6870/2012 and LPA841/2015is preferredagainstthejudgmentdated 29.10.2015passed in W.P (C) 10111/2015 respectively. 2. The facts of the present appeals are that on 10.09.2007 Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "lOCL") issued an advertisement inviting applications from Scheduled Caste (Women) candidates to award dealership in respect of its retail outlet located at Nand Nagri, Delhi. Eligible candidates were called for an interview on 26.08.2008, however, as per the circular dated 07.04.2005the result was kept in abeyanceand thereby fresh interview was conducted on 20.09.2008. The difference in the marks between Anju Kumari who secured the first rank and Anita Devi-I who secured the third rank was marginal and before any action could be taken four complaints were received against this selection process. As there were errors in this selection process fresh interviews were held between 22"'^ and 24'*' December, 2009 and this time Anita Devi-I secured the first rank and Anju kumari secured second rank. A complaintdated 26.12.2010was filed by Anju kumariallegingthatAnita Devi-I had violated the dealership norms since she already had a dealershipawarded HPCL (HindustanPetroleumCorporationLimited). An orderdated30.11.2010dis-empanelledAnitaDevi-Ion the groundof violating the multiple dealership norms and an order dated 11.03.2011 sustainedthe decisionof the dis-empanelmenton a differentgroundthat LPA Nos. 664/2015,720/2015and 841/2015 Page2of9 \ %\ she did not possess the necessary qualification. 3. W.P(C) 6870/2012 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.07.2015 setting aside the impugned orders dated 30.11.2010 and 11.03.2011 with further direction to lOCL to examine the material submittedby Anita Devi-I along with her representationdated 10.04.2011.lOCL was further directedto take a positionrelatingto the validityofthepost-graduatecertificateplacedonrecordbyAnju Kumari in the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University vs Secretary to the Government & Ors. case. lOCL had to declare the fmal result in compliance of the aforesaid directions and notify the same to the above candidates. 4. W.P(C)8032/2015was dismissedbythe learnedSingleJudgevide order dated 07.09.2015holdingthat the reliefclaimedby the petitioner thereinshouldhave been made at the time of decisionof earlierpetition and therefore dismissed the petition on the ground that the same was misconceived and not maintainable. 5. W.P(C) 10111/2015was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide orderdated 29.10.2015holdingthatmerelyby changingthe form of languagethe outcome of a Us could not be different and therefore,the writ petition is covered by the order dated 07.09.2015 passed by this Court. 6. For the purposeof disposalof this order we would be referringto Anita Devi as the appellantand Indian Oil CorporationLtd. and Anju Kumari as