S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the select panel dated 20th April, 2001, as contained in Annexure 4, issued by the then Selection Board, Dhanbad, wherein the name of 5th Respondent Mrs. Poonam Singh has been shown as first selected candidate, name of petitioner Satish Kumar Sinha. as a third selected candidate and another Mamta Kumari, as the second selected candidate for dealership of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL for short) for the location of "Urwan More", Hazaribagh.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, in the year 1999, the IOCL commissioned a Retail Outlet of the liquid Petroleum Products in the form of Fuel at Urwan More, Hazaribagh and petitioner being selected in interview held on 13th October, 1999, was provided with letter of allotment dated 5th November 1999. It was allowed for a period of one year extended by another year from 6th November, 2000 to 5th November, 2001 on contract basis. Subsequently, a re -advertisement was issued on 2nd September, 2000 in different newspapers by IOCL calling for applications for Retail Outlet at different places, including Urwan More, Hazaribagh. It was issued in continuation of earlier advertisement dated 16th May, 1998. A Booklet containing relevant provisions regarding selection of dealer was published by IOCL. The petitioner and others applied and after interview held on 19th April. 2001, the impugned panel was issued by Dealer Selection Board, Dhanbad on 20th April, 2001. The selection of 5th Respondent as first recommendee has been challenged by petitioner on different counts, as highlighted in the synopsis and quoted hereunder : (A) As per the norms/Regulation the interview Board should consist of three members (Eg. one Chairman, one Chief Manager of Oil Corporation and one Chief Manager of another Oil Corporation), while at the time of conducting interview, only two members were present. Third member was not present there. (B) As per the norms/Regulations the entire selection procedure has to be completed within a period of 145 days from the date of publication of advertisement. In the instant case advertisement was published on 2.9.2000 and Interview was conducted on 19.4.2001 and 20.4.2001, i.e. after a lapse of 230 days. (C) As per the norms/Regulations the names of the selected candidates should be published in alphabetical order, which has not done here. (D) As per the norms/Regulations experience in the live of dealership has to seen but in the present case it has been totally overlooked. The petitioner is at present running the same outlet (petrol pump) on contract basis, and has gained a good experience while respondent No. 5 is totally unknown of this live. She is at present running a constructor company. (E) As per the norms/Regulations the Family income of the candidate should exceed Rs. 2,00,000/ - per annum, but in the instant case the husband of the petitioner is SDO in Rusal Engineering Organisation under Jharkhand Government and his monthly income, is more than 20,000/ - per month Respondent No. 5 is herself a income Tax payee.
(3.) THE respondents, on appearance, have filed their counter affidavit and opposed the prayer. They mainly relied on the amended guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet dealer as circulated, vide Office Memorandum dated 9th October, 2000 issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India.;