- (1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the communications dated 14.03.2012 and 02.05.2012 (Annexure P -3 and P -6), vide which, candidature of the petitioner for LPG distributorship at Chandigarh under the SC category has been cancelled.
(2.) VIDE advertisement dated 01.12.2007 (Annexure P -1), applications were invited for appointment of LPG distributorship at Chandigarh. The petitioner made an application for allotment along with requisite documents. He was interviewed and his entire documentation were scrutinized. Finally, the petitioner was shown at second place in the select panel dated 23.01.2010 (Annexure P -2).
(3.) THEREAFTER , the information given by the petitioner was scrutinized and vide order dated 14.03.2012 (Annexure P -3), his placement at serial No2 in the merit panel was annulled and he stood Prasher Ajay disqualified. The ground for disqualification was as under: - The para 5 of the Annexure - A affidavit dated 31.12.2007 attached with your application states "Indian Corporation/Bharat Petroleum Corporation/Hindustan Petroleum Corporation" instead of "Indian Oil Corporation." Further, Bharat Petroleum Corporation/Hindustan Petroleum Corporation has also not been struck off by you as per the instruction given in the foot note (i.e. Strike off whatever is not applicable). Mentioning 'Indian Corporation' makes the affidavit invalid and non -implementable. As a faulty Annexure -A affidavit makes a candidate ineligible for selection, hence, your placement at No.2 on the merit panel is annulled and you stand disqualified for allotment of LPG distributorship at Chandigarh." The affidavit filed by the petitioner along with application dated 31.12.2007 is annexed as Annexure P -4. Pursuant to the order dated 14.03.2012 (Annexure P -3), the petitioner wrote a letter dated 19.13.2012 (Annexure P -5) to the respondents seeking permission to re -file a fresh affidavit. However, vide letter dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure P -6), the respondents rejected the plea of the petitioner by stating that they have already clarified their stand vide earlier order dated 14.03.2012 and they have nothing to add further in this regard. Upon notice, written statement on behalf of the respondents has been filed, stating therein that the petitioner was placed at serial No.2 in the merit list, whereas one Ms. Puja Singh was placed at No.3 in the said list. After scrutinizing their forms, it was found that the affidavit given by the petitioner as well as Ms. Puja Singh was faulty. In this regard, Clause 16.4 of the brochure reads as under: - "16.4 - If the 3rd candidate also fails to fulfill the terms and conditions of offer or found unsuitable for any reason, whatsoever or in case where no. 2nd or 3rd candidates are available in the "merit panel" as explained above, the location may be re -advertised at the discretion of the oil company.";