Baby v. The Selection Committee
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.6868 of 2015 and M.P.No.2 of 2015 Baby
...Petitioner
Vs 1.The Selection Committee, 2.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager,
...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the advertisement made in serial number 274 of SH-128, Banavaram, Thiruvallur District under the caption of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. the 2nd respondent in Thina Thanthi, the Tamil daily News paper dated 17.10.2014 in Vellore Edition and quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner as retail-outlet dealership for Banavaram village in S.No.179Arokkonam Taluk, Vellore - district based on the undertaking given to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent dated 02.06.2014. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Veerasekaran For Respondents : Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali
O R D E R
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Indian Oil Corporation Limited made a submission that the petitioner participated in the process of selection for grant of Petrol Bunk dealership based on the notification issued
in the year 2010. No doubt, the petitioner was found eligible, but he was not granted with the distribution. One Smt.Padmavathy was issued with the letter of intent to run the Petrol Bunk. 2.The petitioner has not challenge the notification of the year 2010. Contrarily, he had challenged the notification, which was issued in the year 2014 and based on the impugned notification, the petitioner has not even participated in the process of selection and if at all the grievance exist, it must be on the basis of the notification issued in the year 2010, wherein the petitioner was participated and the other person one Smt.Padmavathy was issued with the letter of intent. Further, the appointed candidate has not been impleaded as a party respondent in the writ proceedings.
3.Thus, there is no relevance in respect of challenging the notification issued subsequently in the year 2015. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the said Padmavathy has not commenced the operation of Petrol Bunk retail outlet. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to redress its grievances in the manner known to law by impleading all necessary parties and with reference to the selection of the year 2010, if the petitioner has chosen to do so. 4.With these liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vs To 1.The Selection Committee,
2.The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, +1 CC to Mr.D.Veerasekaran, Advocate sr 59241. W.P.No.6868 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 GPL(CO) SP(29/11/2021)