Smt.Kota Jagadeeshwari,Metpally,Karimnagar District v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., S.D.Road,Secunderabad

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITON No.17288 of 2011 ORDER:

None appears for the petitioner. Heard Sri P. Prabhakar, Learned Counsel for the respondents. The relief sought for in the Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's application, for selection of Petrol/Diesel, Kisan Seva Kendra Dealership, on the ground that proof of age was not available, vide letter dated 06.06.2011, as arbitrary and illegal. In the counter affidavit filed by the Manager, Retail Sales of the Indian Oil Corporation, it is stated that an advertisement was issued on 25.06.2011 for selection of dealers between Metpally and Vempata road, Karimnagar, under Open Women Category; ten applications were received of which two applications, including that of the petitioner, were rejected as the applicants were not found to be eligible; the other eight candidates were interviewed on 2.06.

2011; the minimum age stipulated in the advertisement is 21 years; on scrutiny of the PAN card and the Secondary School Certificate submitted by the petitioner, it was noticed that the date of birth was 15.11.1967, whereas the date of birth mentioned in her application was 12.07.1968; likewise, while the name shown in the Secondary School Certificate was Ch. Jagadeeshwari, the name indicated in the application was Kota Jagadeeshwari, hence her application was rejected; interviews were held on 22.06.2011; and the results were published on the same day.

It is evident, from the counter-affidavit, that the documents submitted by the petitioner were at variance with the information stated by her in her application form. In any event, pursuant to the interview

held on 22.06.2011, a candidate has been selected for dealership, and must be carrying on business for the past 61⁄2 years. In the absence of the selected candidate being arrayed as a respondent, it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to now examine whether or not the petitioner's application ought to have been considered. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's application. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ Date: 09.03.2018 MRKR