- (1.) HEARD Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: a).issue a writ, order or direction,including a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 1.7.2014 passed by the respondent no.1, General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Lucknow (Annexure -6 to the writ petition). b). issue a writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate fresh orders regarding award of marks under the hearing 'Experience' in favour of respondent no.3. c). issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(3.) IT appears that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. issued an advertisement dated 26.10.2011 inviting applications for issuance of Retail Outlet in various localities including the location, namely, Haldi Rampur on SH -1 (Ballia - Turtipar Road). The aforesaid location was reserved for Open (W) "Women Category" with corpus fund facilities for women. The petitioner was also one of the applicants against the said advertisement. It further appears that two persons, namely, Smt. Manju Gupta as well as Smt. Priyanka Jaiswal had opted for corpus fund facilities, therefore, marks obtained by all other candidates under the heading "capability to provide infrastructure and facility" as well as "capability to arrange finance" were not considered. Thereafter, interview call letters to the candidates including the petitioner were issued. The interview was held on 15.7.2013 and the result was declared on the same day. Respondent no.3 - Smt. Pratima Gupta was placed at sl.no.1 in the merit panel having obtained 29.83 marks out of 40 marks whereas the petitioner was placed at sl.no. 2 in the merit panel having obtained 28.83 marks. It further appears that the petitioner obtained four marks out of four under the heading 'experience' whereas the respondent no.3 also obtained four marks in this heading. After declaration of the result, the petitioner claims to have received an information allegedly 'from reliable sources' that respondent no.3 was not entitled for full four marks under the heading 'experience'. Consequently, she moved an application dated 22.7.2013 to the Public Information Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. requesting for copy of the application form submitted by the respondent no.3. After collecting further information, particularly, experience certificate of the respondent no.3 to the effect that she has worked as Sales Manager, hence as per the brochure she was entitled for only one mark and not four marks as awarded to her under the heading 'experience'. Alleging that no decision was taken by the Corporation on the complaint made by the petitioner, she preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54799 of 2013 (Smt. Geeta Yadav vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others) praying for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing marks allocated by the selection committee in the interview held on 15.7.2013 in favour of the respondent no.3 in so far as they pertain to the heading 'experience' and further a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents not to issue any Letter of Intent in favour of the respondent no.3. The aforesaid writ petition was decided by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 8.10.2013. Copy of the said order is appended as Annexure -5 to the writ petition.;