B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. - (1.) CONSIDERING the nature of controversy involved in the matter, Writ Petition is heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.
(2.) SHRI Samarth, learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has fully complied with the eligibility norms in relation to financial capacity, and respondents had been too technical about non -production of original fixed deposit receipts, mentioned in tender document, as security. Its non -production at the most could have resulted in discarding those two receipts, which does not in any way prejudice the eligibility of petitioner in terms of the advertisement. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for respondents has relied upon reply affidavit. He submits that the matter pertains to contract between the parties and in this situation, in order to be fair and transparent, all officers of the respondent interpret the provisions strictly. He points out that petitioner was aware of his obligation to produce originals of all documents submitted by him along with his application, and this was also communicated to him vide interview call. As two original documents could not be produced, these stipulations were breached and it automatically led to rejection of his application.
(3.) HE also invites attention to additional submissions placed on record by respondents on 20.11.2014. According to him, the Union of India has instructed the respondents to cancel all such proposals where interviews have not taken place. He submits that here as respondent no. 3 claimant was already interviewed, consequently the directions of Union of India did not apply, however, if fresh interviews are directed to be held, the communication dated 23.06.2014, will become applicable and respondents will be required to issue fresh advertisement. He points out that as per the said direction of Union of India, allotment is now to be made by draw of lots and not on the strength of interview only.;