Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) AN advertisement (Annex.6) came to be published in the daily newspaper, Rajasthan Patrika dated 17.10.2009, inviting applications for award of distributorship under the Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme ('RGGLV') at different villages and towns in the State of Rajasthan to different category of persons as specified therein. Various eligibility conditions were also specified in the advertisement. For the present purpose, the relevant aspects are that the application to be made by the desirous candidate was to reach the concerned office latest by 16.11.2009 and the candidate was, inter alia, required to have, as on the date of the application, at least an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ - in the savings bank account in his name or in the names of the persons forming his 'family unit'.
(2.) THE Petitioner, said to be answering to all the eligibility conditions and belonging to physically handicapped category, made an application for grant of such distributorship at Posalia, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi. According to the Petitioner, he sent the application on 11.11.2009 that was duly received by the Respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ('BPCL') on 13.11.2009. Further, according to the Petitioner, on the date of application, a sum of Rs. 2,00,097/ - was available in his savings bank account. The Petitioner has pointed out that after making of the application, the Respondents proceeded with the draw of lots wherein he was found successful but then, instead of issuing him the authorisation, the Respondents issued the impugned communication dated 06.08.2010 (Annex.7) informing that as a part of selection process, a team of the officers carried out field verification of the credentials; and the information about the availability of funds as given by him in the application form 'dated 11.10.2009' was found to be incorrect and as on the given date, the total amount from all sources was found to be Rs. 50,097/ - only. The Respondents, therefore, stated that in view of the discrepancies found in the field verification, the candidature of the Petitioner was not found suitable for award of RGGLV. The said communication dated 06.08.2010 (Annex.7) being the subject matter of challenge, the relevant contents thereof are reproduced as under: Reference your application serial No. UT/POS/03 for the proposed Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak [RGGLV] at Posaliyan, District Sirhohi [Raj.]. As you are aware that your candidature was selected in the draw held at Udaipur on 20.04.10 for the subject location. As part of the selection process, as per the guidelines, a team of two Officers carried out the Field Verification of Credentials provided by you in the application. The following information as provided by you in your application from dated 11.10.2009 was found to be at variance during field verification. The information given in the application - Item No. 10 [Item No. 10.2] is found to be at variance i.e. you have mentioned fund of Rs. 2,00,097/under item No. 10.2 of the application but on verification the total sum from all sources was found to be Rs. 50,097/ -. In view of the above discrepancies observed in the Field Verification of Credential, your candidature is not found suitable for award of RGGLV for the above referred location. Accordingly we shall be progressing the selection process for this location as per guidelines. Please note that no further correspondence in this regard shall be entertained.
(3.) THE Petitioner has averred that the contents of this communication are factually incorrect inasmuch as the advertisement itself was issued on 17.10.2009 and the application was made on 11.11.2009 and not on 11.10.2009 as stated. The Petitioner has further placed on record as Annexure -8 a copy of his savings bank account maintained with Posalia Branch of the State Bank of India and it is submitted that a balance of Rs. 2,00,097/ - was available as on the date of the application. It is, therefore, submitted that the Respondents have proceeded on the basic mistake regarding the amount available in the savings bank account of the Petitioner; and, as the required amount was indeed available in his account on the date of the application, the impugned communication deserves to be quashed and the Respondents deserve to be directed to award him the distributorship under RGGLV.;