Sanjay Kumar, J. - (1.) CANDIDATURE of the appellant, selected for award of the Indane Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Distributorship at Yerraguntla, Kadapa District, was cancelled by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited under proceedings dated 13.10.2009 on the ground that he had furnished wrong information. His challenge to the said proceedings in Writ Petition No.22739 of 2009 having failed, the appellant is now before us.
(2.) EARLIER invalidation of the appellant?s candidature on the same ground under the Corporation?s proceedings dated 10.03.2009 was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.6694 of 2009 as the appellant was not given any notice or opportunity prior thereto. The Corporation was however given the liberty to initiate the process afresh by calling for the appellant?s explanation and conducting an enquiry. The Corporation thereupon issued him the Show Cause Notice dated 24.04.2009 informing him that upon verification, the experience certificate dated 20.06.2007 produced by him was found to be incorrect and calling upon him to show cause as to why his candidature for award of the subject Distributorship should not be cancelled. The appellant was also informed that the verification was consequent to the complaint made by one N.Vijaya Saradhi, the second empanelled candidate for award of the subject Distributorship. In his explanation dated 30.05.2009, the appellant stressed upon the fact that he had been awarded 3.7 marks towards experience out of a maximum of 4 marks in the interview and that as per the guidelines the performance at the interview was of paramount importance. As regards the experience certificate dated 20.06.2007 issued by M/s.Sri Sreenivasa Gas Agencies, Tirupati, he stated that he was only appointed as a Supervisor on temporary basis and was therefore not on their rolls. He further stated that when he confronted the proprietor of the said Agencies as to why he had denied the contents of the experience certificate, he was informed that N.Vijaya Saradhi, the second empanelled candidate, had threatened and coerced the proprietor into doing so. He pointed out that the issuance of the experience certificate was admitted by the proprietor of the Agencies and consequently, furnishing of wrong information by him did not arise. Basing upon the enquiry held in the matter by the Chief Area Manager of the Corporation, the impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2009 were issued recording that the appellant had not worked with M/s.Sri Sreenivasa Gas Agencies, Tirupati, and the experience certificate produced by him in this regard was false. As the appellant was found to have furnished wrong information rendering him ineligible for award of the subject Distributorship, as per clause 17 of the application, the Corporation cancelled his candidature.
(3.) THE learned single Judge, while considering the appellant?s challenge to the said proceedings, found that his candidature for award of the subject Distributorship was supported by the experience certificate dated 20.06.2007 but verification of the same reflected that he had not worked with M/s.Sri Sreenivasa Gas Agencies, Tirupati, as claimed by him. THE learned Judge accordingly held that the situation fell within the ambit of clauses 16 and 17 of the application, vitiating the very eligibility of the appellant for award of the subject Distributorship. THE learned Judge drew support from the judgments of the Supreme Court in SHIV KANT YADAV V/s. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (2007) 4 SCC 410 and B.R.CHOWDHURY V/s. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (2004) 2 SCC 177 in this regard and dismissed the writ petition by order dated 25-11-2011. Sri V.R.N.Prashanth, learned counsel representing M/s.Indus Law Firm, counsel for the appellant, argued that the Corporation had again failed to abide by the principles of natural justice as reliance was placed upon material collected behind the back of the appellant while cancelling his candidature. He further contended that the performance of the appellant at the interview being the primary consideration under the guidelines, the experience certificate produced by him was of comparably lesser importance and the Corporation therefore ought not to have cancelled his empanelment in connection therewith.;