OIL SELECTION BOARD Vs. SHASHL BHUSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, one by the Oil Selection Board and the other by the Indian Oil Corporation limited arise from a common judgment dated November 3, 1995 whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 and directed the appellants "to issue letter of intent in respect of distributorship of L.P.G. (Indane) Gas Cylinder in favour of the petitioner either at Sonari or at Burma Mines at Jamshedpur."

(2.) The writ-petition involved a dispute relating to the grant of distributorship of L.P.G. for Mango, Jamshedpur." The Corporation, on the recommendation of the Selection Board had awarded the distributorship to Respondent No. 6. Aggrieved by this, Respondents 1 and 2 who had made a joint application as partners came to this court, initially in C.W.J.C. No. 396/94 which was disposed of by order dated 9.2.1994 directing the Selection Board to consider and dispose of their representation against their non-selection for the distributorship. Following the court's direction the Selection Board disposed of the respondents' representation by its order dated 8.4.1994 stating that the respondents were not recommended as they were placed third in the selection list prepared by the Board. This order was challenged successfully by the respondents before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4127/94 from which these appeals.

(3.) The relevant facts can be stated in brief as follow : An advertisement for the dealership of l.P.G. at Mango, Jamshedpur was issued by the Corporation on 28.2.1988. Respondents 1 and 2 made a joint application in response to the advertisement. There were a number of other applicants including Respondent No. 6. The applicants were interviewed on 13.9.1990 by the Oil Selection Board (East) which had been constituted on a zonal basis and was then in existence. Following the interview the Board prepared a panel of three names in which Respondents 1 and 2 were placed at Serial No. 1. There is a controversy between the parties regarding the two parties being listed at serial No. 1 in this penal. According to Respondents 1 and 2 the panel was prepared in order of merit and their being at the first position indicated that they had secured the highest marks in the interview. According to the appellants, on the other hand, the panel prepared by the Zonal Selection Board was not merit based. It simply contained the names of three candidates who were short listed on the basis of the interview and their names in the panel were arranged in alphabetical order.