JOYMALYA BAGCHI.J. - (1.) WITH the consent of parties, W. P. No.3278 (W) of 2010 is treated as on day's list and is disposed of with W.P.No.9572 (W) of 2011 by a common judgment and order.
(2.) AFFIDAVITS filed on behalf of the parties in W.P.9572 (W) of 2011 are taken on record. W.P.9572 (W) of 2011 has been preferred by one Chinmoy Bhattacharjee, an unsuccessful candidate who had applied to be appointed as a regular LPG distributor under the respondent Oil Company pursuant to an advertisement issued by the said Company on 16.9.2007. In response of such advertisement, the petitioner had applied for appointment as distributor of LPG at Barabazar, Alipurduar, District -Jalpaiguri. Respondent Nos.5A, 5B and 6 were also applicants for appointment to the self -same distributorship. It has been claimed by the petitioner that pursuant to the selection process an initial list was prepared where the petitioner was placed at serial No.2, whereas the respondent Nos.5A and 5B were illegally placed at the top. It is the further contention of the petitioner that though the respondent no.6 was not included in the initial list, the panel was unfairly recast and respondent no.6 was placed ahead of the petitioner in the recasted panel. Petitioner contended that the application of respondent nos.5A and 5B was not in terms of the advertisement and/or the conditions laid down in the brochure applicable for selection of LPG dealers. Respondent no.6 was also illegally included in the recasted panel. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5A and 5B disputed the fact that his client did not comply with the requisite parameter for selection. He submitted that his clients were placed at the top of the list in view of the fact that they had complied with all parameters and had scored the minimum marks. He further submitted that the petitioner being placed at serial No.3 did not have any locustandi to challenge their selection. It was further claimed that the objection of the petitioner with regard to the location of their show room/go down, was in fact, investigated into and rejected vide order dated 28.2.2011, being annexure P -9 to the writ petition.
(3.) MR . Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 disputed that her name was included in the panel unfairly subsequently. He submitted that his client was initially not empanelled and had challenged such decision in W.P.3278 (W) of 2010. During the pendency of such petition, respondents realised their mistake and empanelled her at serial no.2 ahead of the petitioner. Hence, petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved since rejection of application of respondent nos.5A and 5B would entitle respondent no.6 and not the petitioner for selection. He, however, admitted in view of the stance of the respondent no.6 in incorporating her name in the panel nothing survived for decision in W.P.3278 (W) of 2010.;