V.K.Dixit, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and Sri K.M. Mishra learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and have perused relevant documents on record.
(2.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19/2/2010 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by Dy. General Manager-NCZ, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs; (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure No. 11 to this Writ Petition) passed by Dy. General Manager-NCZ Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. (i-a) issue a writ order or direction declaring the Clause 8 (b) (iii) of the guidelines/criteria of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation applicable for MSD/ HSD dealership making classification made between women above 40 years with earning capacity and widow women below 40 years with earning capacity . as unconstitutional, arbitrary, irrational without having nexus or with the object sought to be achieved and without being based upon any intelligible differentia, thus violative of fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Award cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) (i) In brief, the petitioner's case is that an advertisement was made by the respondent No. 2 in the daily newspaper namely "Amar Ujala" on 23.6.2009 inviting the applications for appointing the retail outlet dealers for various locations. The petitioner applied for the location mentioned in the said advertisement on item No. 236.The petitioner received a letter dated 10.9.2009 intimating her to appear before the Selection Board for interview on 10.9.2009 under the procedure for selecting the candidate for retail outlet, the marks are awarded under the heading which are as follows: (a) Land and infrastructure maximum marks 35. (b) Capability to arrange finance maximum marks 25. (c) Education Qualification maximum marks 15. (d)Age maximum marks 4. (e) Experience maximum marks 4. (f) Capability to Generate Business maximum marks 10. (g) Business Acumen maximum marks 6. (h) Personality maximum marks 2. 3. (ii) That the petitioner has been awarded higher marks than respondent No. 4 in all the categories except the experience where the petitioner has been illegally awarded (0) marks. The respondent No. 4 has also been illegally given the benefit of Corpus Fund Scheme. The capability to provide the land infrastructure facility and capability to arrange finance of the petitioner is much more than that of the respondent No. 4: The respondent No. 2 has acted mala fidely against the petitioner. That the petitioner had made complaint against the illegalities before the Chairman/Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited on 29.9.2009 through registered post. By the impugned order dated 19.2,2010, the Dy. General Manager-North Central Zone Record note disposing of the complaint of the petitioner, as rejected. 3. (iii) That the impugned order dated 19.2.2010 suffers from manifest illegality as it interprets Clause 8 (b) (iii) of the guidelines. It includes widow below 40 years of age irrespective of earning of their parents under the Corpus Fund Scheme. The respondent No. 4 is having huge income out of the funds of his father-in-law Still she is eligible for the Corpus Fund Scheme whereas the petitioner is not eligible for the Corpus Fund Scheme. That the Clause 8 (B) (3) clearly prescribed that the Corpus Fund Scheme is available only to widow and unmarried women having without earning parents and above 40 years and respondent No. 4 satisfies neither of the aforesaid two conditions. The impugned order suffers from manifest illegality, that the classification made by the Clause 8 (b) (iii) between women having earning parents and widows having earning parents being without any rationale or having nexus with the object sought to be achieved by such classification and it being not based upon any intelligible differentia, it is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory: violative the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thus Clause 8 (b) (iii) is unconstitutional, so far as it permits widows below 40 years and having earning parents to be eligible for Corpus Fund Scheme. . 3. (iv) The petitioner is more well equipped to run a retailed outlet. The petitioner has given a certificate and she orally stated that she had done the managerial and supervisory job in M/s. Triveni Sahai & Sons from 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008. The impugned order holding that the said certificate is only for learning clearly amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record. The experience certificate of respondent No. 4 is fake and forged and she also did not fulfil the requisite criteria in the Corpus Fund Scheme. The authorities have acted in manifest illegality in passing the impugned order. The impugned order suffers from patent error of law which vitiates the selection. 3. (v) Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has placed reliance on the case of Kaliash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others,(2002)6 SCC 562.;