Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) PETITIONER , an unsuccessful aspirant for retail outlet dealership near Kotri Phata on main road from Kotri Phanta to Kolayat, District Bikaner, Rajasthan, under Open Women Category, has laid this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing impugned communications dated 22nd of August, 2012 (Annex.3) and dated 15th of October, 2012 (Annex.5). Further, a consequential relief is craved for by the petitioner to restore the marks awarded to her as well as third respondent under the head "Land and Infrastructure" for issuance of letter of intent for the retail outlet in her favour.
(2.) THE facts, apposite for the purpose of this writ petition, are that respondent, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (for short 'HPCL') issued an advertisement inviting applications for grant of retail outlet on 19th September, 2011 under Open Women Category for the location mentioned supra. Being eligible, the petitioner submitted her application form along with the map of proposed site for outlet situated in Khasra No. 97 measuring 0.72 bigha. It is averred in the writ petition that entire land of Khasra No. 97 belongs to her and the site proposed for said retail outlet is located somewhere in the middle of the said khasra. It is also submitted that no road is existing around the said khasra except the main Kolayat road for which retail outlet has been notified. In support thereof, certificate issued by the concerned Tehsildar dated 4th of September 2012 is also annexed. After submission of application form, a Committee of HPCL before interview inspected the sites proposed by all the applicants for adjudging suitability of the land offered. Precisely, the object of the site inspection was to facilitate awarding of marks for land and infrastructure to the applicants. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was called for interview on 16th December, 2011 and the selection committee awarded her 76.75 marks by adjudging merit position as first. It appears that there was some cause of acrimony to the third respondent against merit position of the petitioner and that prompted her to lodge a complaint before HPCL. As per the version of petitioner, she was never apprised about the complaint, nor any opportunity of being heard was afforded to her by HPCL and abruptly by a communication dated 22nd of August, 2012, a decision to her detriment was communicated. In the aforesaid communication, the marks awarded to the petitioner were substantially reduced and 76.75 marks awarded to her were substituted by 47. The communication also gave profound shock to the petitioner inasmuch as marks awarded to third respondent were increased from 75.71 to 84.65, altering the merit position to her advantage, and she was elevated to first position in the merit. This sort of communication tempted the petitioner to submit reply, and along with the reply petitioner also submitted a copy of the certificate issued by Tehsildar as well as map of the land in question. As per the version of petitioner, after receipt of her reply, no further communication was addressed to her nor any opportunity of being heard was extended to her and by communication dated 15th October, 2012 she was asked to appear for fresh interview for the said location on 29th October, 2012 due to cancellation of earlier merit panel.
(3.) IT is asserted by the petitioner in the petition that cancellation of merit panel and holding a fresh interview is nothing but a farce to deprive the petitioner from her legitimate expectation pursuant to earlier merit panel. It is also contended by the petitioner that cancellation of the panel prepared earlier, without observance of principles of natural justice, is unwarranted. The petitioner has once again reiterated that before interview site was inspected by the committee of HPCL and before revising marks, no endeavour was made by the Committee of HPCL to inspect the site afresh and even the certificate issued by Tehsildar indicating no way abutting the land of the petitioner except main road, has not been taken into consideration. The petitioner has also set out a specific case that while increasing the marks awarded to third respondent by Selection Committee nothing was conveyed to her and every exercise was undertaken by HPCL clandestinely behind her back. While referring to Clause 19 of the Procedure provided for Grievance/Complaint Redressal System, petitioner has categorically averred that the procedure provided therein has not been adhered to by HPCL in letter and spirit inasmuch as Clause 19(b) has been given complete go -bye. It is further submitted by the petitioner that altering the merit position of the empanelled candidates without spelling out reasons is dehors the guidelines of HPCL. At the cost of repetition, the petitioner has once again reiterated violation of principles of natural justice, i.e., audi alteram partem.;