- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) WITH the consent of counsel for the parties, these three writ petitions are being finally decided at admission stage. Since common question of allotment of retail outlet at Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu is involved in all these three writ petitions, for which the petitioners were the applicants but none of them has been allotted the retail outlet, therefore, these writ petitions are being decided by this common order. Common facts involved in all the three writ petitions The respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited issued an advertisement dated 13.7.2009 (Anx.1 in CWP No.8210/2010) for appointment of the Retail Outlet Dealers at various places and invited applications from the candidates, out of which, one retail out let was situated at Village Udaipurwati in District Jhunjhunu at Sl.No.52, which was of open category. As per the aforesaid advertisement, the last date for receipt of the applications was 13.08.2009 and there is no dispute that all the petitioners filed their forms before the aforesaid last date. There is also no dispute that all the petitioners appeared before the Interview Board in pursuance to their respective applications on 4.3.2010. However, the dispute is with regard to non-awarding of the marks / reduction of marks and further, not alloting the retail outlet to Ishwar Dutt Chaturvedi and Ghanshyam Singh Shekhawat (petitioners in CWP No.12961/2010) who originally stood at Sl.No.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside Clause 19(a) of the Guidelines for Selection Retail Outlet Dealers and further for a direction to quash and aside the provisional mark sheet dated 4.3.2010 and that the respondent may be directed to redraw the given mark sheet after due weightage for and to the petitioner as admissible to him and issue the letter of intent in favour of the petitioner for retail outlet dealership for Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that as per the provisional mark sheet, the petitioner stood at the last number as no marks were awarded by the Interview Board for the land provided by the petitioner. The said grievance is based on the fact that prior to the filling of the form, the petitioner had purchased land as required by the respondent ? Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (in short "the respondent HPCL") vide sale deed dated 10.8.2009; the said land was mutated in the name of the petitioner on 7.9.2009 and different Khata of the said land was opened. Moreover, the Tehsildar even submitted report on 18.12.2009 wherein it is mentioned that on the land of the petitioner is neither an encroachment nor any catchment area is being hindered. The Public Works Department had also issued a No Objection Certificate on 22.9.2009. The provisional mark sheet (Anx.3) was issued on 4.3.2010 according to which, the petitioner stood at the last number as no marks were awarded to him by the Interview Board for the land provided by the petitioner whereas he is entitled for the marks for the land, for the reason that for ? share i.e. 0.71 Hectare out of the total land measuring 1.42 Hectare the sale deed was executed in his favour, of which the map, report of the Halka Patwari, verification from the local revenue officer Tehsildar were deposited along with the application form and further, before the interview, the process of opening separate Khasra No., Khata, mutation, Jamabandi, Girdawari was completed and all those documents wee submitted by him on 4.3.2010 at the time of interview but the same have not been considered. On receipt of the aforesaid provisional mark sheet, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent HPCL on 17.3.2010 (Anx.5), which was acknowledged by the respondent HPCL and the said representation was treated as complaint under Clause 19(a) of the Guidelines for Selection Retail Outlet Dealers (in short 'the Guidelines') relating to the grievance/complaint whereas the same was required to be considered as representation to correct the error on the part of the respondent HPCL of not awarding marks of land and the petitioner was entitled for the marks of the land which is to be added in the provisional mark-sheet.
(3.) IN the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the relief, as stated above. In this writ petition, on 9.6.2010, an interim order was passed by this Court whereby the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to marks to be awarded for land, the petitioner has under his ownership and to proceed accordingly. In compliance of the interim order dated 9.6.2010, the respondent HPCL has passed a detailed order with regard to the petitioner and other complainants on 9.8.2010 which has been filed along with S.B.Civil Second Stay Petition No.5824/2010 in SB CWP No.8210/2010 Vijendra Singh V. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and marked as Annexure A-1, whereby the representation dated 17.3.2010 submitted by Vijendra Singh (petitioner in SB CWP No.8210/2010) was rejected and total 56.67 marks awarded to him excluding the marks of land were confirmed by considering the complaints of Ram Devi Saini and 35 others & Amit Kumar Sharma relating to the land offered by the petitioner Vijendra Singh and suppression of other information as well as unpartitioned land which was found to be true. It is pertinent to menton here that by the said order dated 9.8.2010, the marks of Amit Kumar Sharma (petitioner in SB CWP No.12640/2010) have been reduced from 88.84 to 54.89 by considering the nature of the complaint that the land offered by Amit Kumar Sharma is situated on SH-37 and is only 66 meters from BPC outlet as against the norm of 300 meters as per Rajasthan PWD and as such this land should have been disqualified. Thereafter, reference of the order dated 12.4.2010 in CWP No.4875/2010 was given in the case of Amit Kumar Sharma and in the column 'Status findings on investigation' it was mentioned ' Found to be true. Marks awarded to Shri Amit Kumar Sharma is reduced to 54.89 from 88.84". In the last of the aforesaid order dated 9.8.2010, it has been mentioned that as there is change in the ranking of merit panel, it has been decided to conduct re-interview of the eligible candidates as per the Guidelines. ;