- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction to the respondents to issue letter of intent for distributorship of Indane LPG at Faridabad 'A' in his favour, claiming that in the select-list although he was at serial No.2 since the candidate at serial No.1, namely, Smt. Shailly Gupta, was not eligible. Consequently her candidature was cancelled and he becomes entitled to the allotment of Indane LPG pursuance to the judgment of this Court rendered in case "Rekha Kumari Vs. Union of India" in C.W.P. No. 12218 of 2001 decided on 17.3.2006. When the matter came up for consideration on 5.2.2008, learned counsel for the Indane Oil Corporation-respondent No.1 had produced before us a report dated 21.2.2006, prepared by the Vigilance Department, Indian Oil Corporation, along with other documents. According to the aforementioned report, the petitioner-Bhim Kumar was awarded 180 marks by the Selection Committee comprising of three members and as such the average marks were calculated to 60. His ranking in the select- list was at serial No.2. The Vigilance Department of the respondent- Corporation found that marking by the Interview Committee was faulty and it was not consistent with the guidelines issued for award of marks. It was concluded by the Vigilance Department that the total marks of the petitioner, in fact, came to 143 and average marks would be 47.63, slipping down the petitioner in the ranking to serial No. 15 of the select panel, instead of serial No. 2. In order to satisfy ourself, we have sent for the original record, which has been produced by Mr. Ashish Kapoor, learned counsel for Indian Oil Corporation-respondent No. 1.
(2.) We have perused the record. In respect of question No. 8 concerning "Fixed Deposit", the petitioner was granted 2 out of 5 marks, although in the application under the heading "Fixed Deposit", he had mentioned 'nil'. Therefore, the Vigilance Department concluded that by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner could have been granted 2 marks out of 5. Therefore, he was not entitled to be awarded any marks. The lapse was also found to be against guidelines available at Annexure P.15 at page 10 under the Heading "Capability to Arrange Finance". Likewise, in respect of question No.9 at page 13 of the record the heading was "Capability to Provide Infrastructure and Facilities- Godown", the petitioner has been awarded 20 out of 20 marks, whereas godown offered by the petitioner is not owned by him and can be considered as a firm offer only. In case of a firm offer, the petitioner was entitled to grant 10 out of 20 marks, as per guidelines at page 111 (Annexure P.15) of the record under the heading "Capability to Provide Infrastructure and Facilities-Godown". It was in these circumstances that the petitioner lost 12.3 marks. The record has been returned to Mr. Asish Kapoor, Advocte after perused.
(3.) Even otherwise, learned counsel for Indian Oil Corporation- respondent No.1 has stated that the whole selection process has been vitiated and the members of Selection Committee have been duly charge- sheeted. He has drawn our attention to the charge-sheet at page 37 of the vigilance file, which has been issued to Mr. H.B. Chauhan, Mr. A.K. Mandal and Mr. A.N. Gurmukhi, who were the members of the Selection Committee. Learned counsel has further stated that another Selection- Committee would interview these very candidates and the selection process shall be continued from the stage of interviews.;