SANDEEP MEHTA, J. - (1.) Reportable: By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Robin Fanda has approached this Court with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that by a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition or by any other appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: 1. allow this writ petition. 2. quash and set aside the communication/order dated 19.05.2011 (Annex.9) and, so also, the order of cancellation of earlier result may be quashed. 3. It is further prayed that the respondents may be directed to give distributorship of LPG for Suratgarh town as per result dated 27.11.2010. 4. It is prayed that interviews held subsequently and merit list (Annex-11) may kindly be quashed and set aside. 5. pass any other order, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. allow cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."
(2.) Facts in nutshell are that in furtherance of an advertisement published in the newspaper Rajasthan Patrika on 13.3.2010, applications were invited by the respondent BPCL for award of LPG Distributorships at various places. The petitioner being a member of the Scheduled Caste community claims to have applied for the distributorship at the location Suratgarh which, as per the advertisement, was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. Total of 205 candidates applied for the location at Suratgarh out of which, 118 participated in the interview. After evaluation, the petitioner was ranked as Candidate No.1 whereas, Ravindra Kumar and Mr.Gunjan Madhia stood Second and Third respectively. The petitioner further claims that people bearing jealousy with him developed an ill motive because of his selection for the distributorship and a totally frivolous Writ Petition No.281/2011 was filed by one M/s.Suratgarh Agency before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench Jaipur claiming that there was no requirement of another gas agency in Suratgarh. The petitioner was intentionally impleaded as a party in the said writ petition. However no sooner, the impleadment application of the petitioner being the 1st ranked candidate in the selection process was accepted, the said writ petition was withdrawn on 4.3.2011. The select list was published on 27.11.2010 but despite lapse of significant period of time, the Letter of Intent was forthcoming whereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation to the competent authority on 19.4.2011 upon which and to his utter surprise, the petitioner received a communication dated 19.5.2011 informing him that a complaint had been received regarding the interview process and after investigation, the interviews held between 24.11.2010 to 27.11.2010 for award of distributorship at Suratgarh location were declared vitiated and the BPCL had decided to hold fresh interviews. The petitioner claims that despite his lawful selection in the interviews, the result whereof had attained finality, without any intimation, or opportunity of hearing, the result was unilaterally and arbitrarily cancelled and the respondents have decided to proceed with fresh interview process contrary to the guidelines thereby extinguishing the crystalized rights of the petitioner. After receiving the communication dated 19.5.2011, the petitioner applied for being provided the reasons behind the impugned action but no information was given whereupon, the instant writ petition came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner for assailing the communication dated 19.5.2011 (Annex.9) and seeking a direction to the respondents to issue the Letter of Intent forthwith in favour of the petitioner in terms of the result of interviews held on 27.11.2010.
(3.) Shri Rajesh Joshi learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Vineet R.Dave Advocate representing the petitioner drew the Court's attention to the guidelines applicable to the selection process in question more particularly the Conditions Nos.15, 21 and 22 thereof and urged that these guidelines which are mandatory in nature clearly stipulate that a complaint against the selection process can only be entertained if received by the office concerned within one month from the date of declaration of the result. He urged that in the case at hand, the respondents, only entertained the frivolous complaint well after mandatory limit of 30 days as provided in the guidelines but they also undertook the investigation process on the complaint unilaterally to the prejudice of the petitioner being the selected candidate without providing him any opportunity of hearing and cancelled the result of interview behind the back of the petitioner in a totally clandestine fashion. Referring to the reply of the respondents and the material documents being the field verification report dated 7.2.2011 issued by the investigating committee constituted of three Members and the final inquiry report dated 23.3.2011, Shri Joshi submitted that the inquiry committee clearly recommended that the complaint submitted by Sh.Gunjan Madhia the empanelled candidate No.3 had no substance and the Office was directed to proceed to forward and issue Letter of Intent to the first empaneled candidate i.e. the petitioner herein. He submitted that the entire frivolous and malicious exercise of depriving the petitioner from the gas agency in question despite his due selection in the fair and transparent interview process was undertaken at the instance of Sh.Gunjan Madhia and his father Sh.H.K.Madhia who is employed as an officer in the BPCL Noida and the entire proceedings have been manipulated under their undue influence. Striking at the unfairness of the proceedings and attributing malafides to the respondents for the impugned action, Shri Joshi drew the Court's attention to various letters written by the petitioner for seeking information about the basis of the impugned action and urged that repeated efforts made by the petitioner to get the requisite information were intentionally thwarted/frustrated because the respondents were aware that their illegal and arbitrary acts infringing the fundamental and statutory rights of a scheduled caste candidate would be exposed if the information sought for was provided. Shri Joshi further drew the Court's attention to the inquiry committee's report dated 23.3.2011 wherein the committee took note of the fact that Mr.Gunjan Madhia even managed to procure an affidavit of one of the interview committee members.;