Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Writ Petn. No. 10654 of 1994

Advocates

Harbhagwan Singh
Sr. Advocate with Tarunvir Vashit
Anil Malhotra and Ranjit Malhotra for (Nos. 2 to 4) and S.S. Nijjar
Sr. Advocate with Gurdev Singh

Judges

Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri
Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion: CWP Nos. 10654 & 16691 of 1994

Factual and Procedural Background

These two writ petitions, CWP No. 10654 of 1994 and CWP No. 16691 of 1994, raise common legal questions and are disposed of by a single order.

The factual matrix (as set out in the opinion) concerns selection for an LPG dealership at Yamuna Nagar. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPC) invited applications for the defence category on June 20, 1993. The petitioner in CWP No. 10654 applied in time, satisfied eligibility conditions, and attended an interview on February 17, 1994. Members of the Oil Selection Board individually marked candidates on that day, but the comparative statement and merit panel were not prepared until March 2, 1994.

The Oil Selection Boards in seven States, including Haryana, were dissolved by a Ministry of Petroleum order dated March 2, 1994, and the Haryana Board was reconstituted on March 16, 1994. The reconstituted Board asked the petitioner to appear again for interview on August 10, 1994. The petitioner in CWP No. 10654 seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Board to declare the result of the interviews held on February 17, 1994, and to grant the dealership according to that result.

CWP No. 16691 (filed by Som Parkash Verma) concerns the same dealership location. That petitioner appeared both on February 17, 1994, and on August 10, 1994. He contends that, because the Oil Selection Board's recommendations based on the February interviews were not received by HPC before the cut-off date, those recommendations lapsed and the selection should be based on the August 10, 1994 interviews; he seeks a mandamus to declare the August 10, 1994 result and take further action to grant the dealership.

Legal Issues Presented

Which policy decision governs the instant cases: Annexure P7 dated March 31, 1993, or Annexure R2 (Memo) dated April 12, 1994?
Whether candidates who were interviewed on February 17, 1994, and individually marked on that day had acquired an indefeasible right to selection such that subsequent disregarding of those panels would be unlawful.
Whether the cut-off date of March 1, 1994 (for panels received by Oil Companies), and the requirement to ignore panels received after that date, is arbitrary or bears a sufficient nexus to the object of fair selection.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to a hearing before their February 17, 1994 selections were set aside (i.e., procedural fairness / right to be heard).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's (CWP No. 10654) Arguments — Mr. Harbhagwan Singh

Interviews and individual markings were completed on February 17, 1994; compilation of results was a ministerial act and could not affect selection — the material date is therefore February 17, 1994, which is before the March 1, 1994 cut-off.
Annexure P7 dated March 31, 1993, is the governing policy; merit panels finalised by previous OSBs but not communicated to Oil Companies should be given effect.
No subsequent decision contrary to Annexure P7 could remove rights accrued from the February 17, 1994 interview.
The cut-off date of March 1, 1994, was arbitrarily fixed and lacked nexus with the object of selecting the most suitable candidate.
The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before scrapping the February 17, 1994 selection.

Respondents' and Other Petitioner's Arguments — Mr. S.S. Nijjar and Mr. Anil Malhotra

Though individual marking occurred on February 17, 1994, the Board did not meet between February 17 and March 2, 1994; the comparative statement and merit panel were prepared and jointly signed only at a meeting on March 2, 1994.
Compilation and preparation of the merit panel was not merely ministerial. The merit panel was delivered to the State-level coordinator's office only on the evening of March 2, 1994 — i.e., after the March 1 cut-off.
Annexure P7 applied only to cases that were reported (54 cases) as having been finalised by previous OSBs but not communicated to Oil Companies; it did not govern future dissolutions or other instances. The operative policy for this situation is Annexure R2 dated April 12, 1994.
No indefeasible right accrued to the petitioner from the February 17, 1994 interview.
The cut-off date has a clear nexus to the dissolution of the Oil Selection Boards (dissolved March 2, 1994): panels received by Oil Companies up to March 1, 1994 would be acted upon; those received after would not, to avoid post-dissolution irregularities.
Absent an accrued right, there was no entitlement to an opportunity of being heard.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court framed the dispositive question: whether Annexure P7 (March 31, 1993) or Annexure R2 (April 12, 1994) governs the present cases. The court analyzed the text and scope of both policy documents and applied them to the factual chronology.

On Annexure P7, the court noted the subject heading: "Oil Selection Boards for Selection of dealers/distributors for Petroleum products-- disposal of cases pending with previous OSBs." The opinion emphasized that "previous OSBs" refers to earlier dissolutions and that paragraph 1(i) of P7 expressly concerned "Cases where merit panels were finalised by the previous OSBs, but not communicated to the Oil Companies" and stated that the present OSBs would release those merit panels for further action. The opinion highlights that the number of such cases was reported to be 54, and therefore P7 was intended to be limited to those identified cases — it was not a blanket policy for all future dissolutions.

The court then examined Annexure R2 (the Ministry memo dated April 12, 1994). The memo records the termination of seven Oil Selection Boards w.e.f. 2-3-1994 and advises that "panels received by the Oil Companies, up to 1-3-1994 only may be considered and LOIs issued in all such cases. Panels received after 1-3-1994 should be ignored. If interviews were conducted and panels not received by Oil Companies up to 1-3-1994, fresh interviews in all such cases will be conducted."

The court concluded from the plain language of Annexure R2 that it was expressly applicable to the merit panels prepared by the OSBs including Haryana, and that only merit panels received by Oil Companies up to March 1, 1994 were to be given effect. Panels received after that date were to be ignored, with fresh interviews to be conducted in any case where panels had not been received by March 1.

Applying these policy instruments to the facts, the court found that although individual markings were made on February 17, 1994, the comparative statement/merit panel was prepared and signed only on March 2, 1994 and was delivered to the relevant office on March 2, 1994 (after the March 1 cut-off). Consequently, the court held that Annexure R2 governs the case and that the merit panel based on the February 17 interviews could not be given effect.

On the question of entitlement to a hearing and the acquisition of an indefeasible right, the court held that no indefeasible right had accrued in favour of the petitioner from the February 17 interview. Because no right had accrued, there was no question of a right to be heard before the Ministry's Policy decision (Annexure R2) was applied. The court also observed a clear nexus between the cut-off date and the dissolution of the Boards on March 2, 1994: the cut-off was directly connected to preventing the risk that a dissolved Board could produce recommendations after dissolution, potentially giving rise to irregularities.

The court therefore accepted the respondents' contention that the April 12, 1994 memo (Annexure R2) was the operative policy for the present circumstances and that re-interviews (or reliance on the August 10, 1994 interviews) were appropriate where panels had been received after March 1, 1994.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The court applied Annexure R2 dated April 12, 1994, as the governing policy and reached distinct outcomes for the two petitions.

Disposition:

CWP No. 10654 of 1994 — dismissed with costs (counsel fee ordered: Rs. 1,500/-).
CWP No. 16691 of 1994 — allowed; the court directed that further action based on the recommendations of the interview held on August 10, 1994, be taken without further delay.

Implications: The direct consequences of the decision are (a) the February 17, 1994 merit panel is not given effect for the purposes of these petitions because the panel was received after the March 1, 1994 cut-off, and (b) in respect of CWP No. 16691 the selection process proceeds on the basis of the August 10, 1994 interviews. The opinion does not identify or claim to establish any new legal precedent beyond application of the Ministry's policy (Annexure R2) to the facts; it treats the Ministry memo as the controlling administrative direction for these cases.

Final order: Petition in CWP No. 10654 dismissed; CWP No. 16691 allowed with directions as stated above.

Show full summary ...

Hardev Singh v. Union Of India And Others

1. This order would dispose of CWP Nos. 10654 and 16691, both of 1994, as they raise common questions of law.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition first above-mentioned are that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPC, for short) respondent (No. 2 invited applications for Dealership of Liquified Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) for Yamuna Nagar for the defence category of June 20, 1993. The petitioner fulfilled the conditions of eligiblity and he applied in time. He attended interview on February 17, 1994. The Chairman and two Members of the Oil Selection Board awarded marks to the petitioner as also the other candidates interviewed for Dealership of the said location in their individual marking sheet. The Oil Selection Boards in seven States including Haryana were dissolved by order dated March 2, 1994, of the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India. The Oil Selection Board for Haryana was reconstituted on March 16, 1994. The reconstituted Board again asked the petitioner to appear for interview on August 10, 1994. The case of the petitioner is that the recommendations by the Oil Selection Board on the basis of interviews held on or about February 17, 1994, were to be given effect in terms of the decision Annexure P7 dated March 31, 1993, and asking the petitioner to appear again in the interview so as to scrap the earlier selectioh was abritrary and illegal. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a writ of mandamus directing the Oil Selection Board to declare the result of the interviews held on Feb. 17, 1994, and to grant the dealership in question for Yamunanagar according to that result.

3. A detailed writtten statment has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 by Shri Justice Harbans Lal (retired), Chairman of the Oil Selection Board, respondent No. 3. It has been stated that individual marking was done by the Members and the Chairman of the Oil Selection Board on the basis of the interviews held on Feb. 17, 1994. On that day, however, the comparative statement and the merit penel were not prepared until March 2, 1994, as no meeting of the Oil Selection Board took place in between Feb. 17, 1993, and March, 2, 1994. The comparative statement Annexure R5 was prepared on March 2, 1994, and it was signed by all the three members including the Chairman at a joint sitting of the Members of the Board and thereafter forwarded to Mr. M.M. Khan, State level Cordinator-cum-Non Member Secretary of the Oil Selection Board in a sealed coyer. The merit panel along with the covering letter dated March 2, 1994, in a sealed cover was received by Mr. Sunil Jain, Personal Assistant to Mr. M.N. Khan on March 2, 1994. at 4.47 p.m. vide receipt Annexure R-3. The Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide Memo dated April 12, 1994, clarified that Merit panels received after March 1, 1994, should be ignored and if interviews were conducted and panels not received by the Oil Companies up to March, I, 1994, fresh interviews in all such cases should be conducted copy of the Memo dated April 12, 1994, is Annexure R-2 It was in pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the Ministry that fresh interviews were held with regard to the location in question.

4. CW.P No. 16691 of 1994 has been filed by Som Parkash Verma. He also applied for same Dealership at Yamunanagar. He appeard in the interview held on Feb. 17, 1904 as well as on August 10, 1994, after the reconstitution of the Oil Selection Board. His case is that in accordance with the decision of the Ministry of Petroleum, the recommen-dation of the Oil Selection Board had not been received by the HPC before the cut off date. The recommendations as a result of interviews held on Feb. 17, 1994, therefore, lapsed and result of selection based on interviews held on August 10, 1994, was to be declared and further action taken for the grant of Dealership in accordance with that result. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to the respondents to declare the result of interviews held on August 10, 1994, with a view to taking further action for the grant of Dealership in question.

5. The contentions of Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, may be summarised as under:--

(i) Interviews were held on Feb. 17, 1994. The Chairman and the Members had evaluated the various candidates interviewed and had incorporated their assessment in the prescribed pro forma on the very day. The work of compilation was a mere ministerial act and the same could not possibly affect the selection. For all practical purposes, therefore, the material date was Feb. 17, 1994, which was long before the cut off date, namely, March 1, 1994.

(ii) The policy decision which was really applicable in this case was Annexure P7 dated March 31, 1993, according to which the merit panels finalised by the previous OSBs but not communicated to the Oil Companies, for further action.

(iii) No decision contrary to the aforesaid decision Annexure P7 could be taken, so as to take away the rights which had accrued in favour of the persons who were selected on the basis of the interview held on Feb. 17, 1994.

(iv) The cut off date, namely March 1, 1994, had been arbitrarily fixed and "there was no nexus between the said date and the overall object of selecting the most suitable candi date.

(v) The petitioner had not been given any opportunity of being heard before scrapping the selection made on the basis of interivews held on Feb. 17, 1994.

6. The contentions of Mr. S.S. Nijjar, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for Som Parkash Verma, writ petitioner in CWP No. 16691 of 1994, on the one hand, and Mr. Anil Malhotra, learned counsel for respon-

dents 2 to 4 in this writ petition, on the other hand, may be summarised as under:--

(i) Marking was done individually on Feb.

17, 1994. The categorical stand of the Oil Selection Board, which had not been dis puted, was that no meeting of the Board took place after, Feb. 17, 1994, unlill March 2, 1994. It was only in that meeting that the merit panel was preparepd under the Joint signatures of the Members and the Chairman.

The work of compiling and preparation of the Merit panel could not be described as ministrial. In any case, admittedly the merit panel was delivered in the office of the State Level Co-ordinator-cum-Non-Member Secre tary only on the evening of March 2, 1994, which was after the cut off date.

(ii) The policy decision Annexure P7 governed cases which were in the pipeline at the time of the dissolution of the earlier Oil Selection Boards. It was not a general policy decision governing all such cases for future The decision which governed the present case was Annexure R2 April 12, 1994, and the panels having not been received before the cut off date, namely, March 1, 1994, in the instant case, the merit panel based on the interviews held on Feb. 17, 1994 was not valid and could not be given effect.

(iii) The petitioner had not acquired any indefeasible right on the basis of the interview held on Feb. 17, 1994.

(iv) There was a clear nexus between the cut off date and finalisation of the merit panels, in that the Oil Selection Board in question was dissolved on March 2, 1994, implying that recommendations made by the Oil Selection Boards prior to their dissolution, which had been received in the office of the Oil Company concerned up to the preceding day i.e. March 1, 1994, would be acted upon and the other recommendations received thereafter would not be acted upon. This was clearly to exclude cases where there could be possibility of any Irregularity in preparing the panel even after the dissolution of the Board.

(v) Unless a right had accrued in favour of the petitioner, there was no question of a right of being heard.

7. We have given our earnest consideration lo the respective contentions.

8. The fate of these writ petitions turns on the question whether the decision Annex-ure P7 dated March 31, 1993, or the one contained in Annexure R2 dated April 12, 1944, governs the present case. We have no doubt that the relevant decision for purposes of the present case is Annexure R2 dated April 12, 1994. We may state our reasons for reaching the above conclusion.

9. In the heading the subject of Annex-life P7 is stated in these words:--

Subject: Oil Selection Boards for Selection of dealers/distributors for Petroleum products-- disposal of cases pending with previous OSBs.

Reference to previous OSBs admittedly refers to earlier dissolution of the Oil Selection Boards and hot to dissolution of the Oil Selection Boards on March 2, 1994. The relevant part of the policy decision is contained in para 1, sub-para(i) of Annexure P7 in the following words:--

"(i) Cases where merit panels were finalised by the previous OSBs, but not communicated to the Oil Companies, the present OSBs will release the merit Panels to the Oil Companies for further action. The number of such cases is reported to be 54."

The number of cases falling in this category was reported to be 54, This clinches the whole matter and the policy could not possibly apply to future dissolutions and it was intended to apply and was expressly limited to those 54 cases in which merit panels had been reportedly finalised by the previous OSBs but they had not communicated the same to the Oil Companies. In regard to such merit panels the decision taken was that the reconstituted OSBs will release the merit panels to the Oil Companies for further action. Memo. Annexure R2 dated April 12, 1994, on the other hand, reads as under:

"Subject:-- Selection of dealers/distributors for petroleum products-disposal of cases pending with previous OSBs.

In pursuance to this Ministry's OMs. all bearing No., P. 19011/2/94-10C dated 2-3-1994, seven Oil Selection Boards namely those for UP, Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Maharashtra, Kerala and Karnataka were terminated by the Government w.e.f. 2-3-1994.

Government's guidance has been sought with regard to the action and procedure to be adopted in respect of merit panels recommended by the erstwhile OSBs and cases pending before them. The Government has considered the issue and it is hereby advised that panels received by the Oil Companies, up to 1-3-1994 only may be considered and LOIs issued in all such cases. Panels received after I-3-1994 should be ignored. If interviews were conducted and panels not received by Oil Companies up to 1 -3-1994, fresh interviews in all such cases will be conducted. Details of such cases should be sent to Government within 10 days."

10. A bare perusal of the above decision leaves no room for doubt that it was made applicable to the merit panels prepared by the Oil Selection Boards including that of Haryana and only those merit panels had to be given effect to which had been received by the Oil Companies concerned up to March 1, 1994. Panels received after March I, 1994, were to be ignored. We, therefore, held that the Policy decision governing the present case is the one dated April 12, 1994, Annexure R2.

11. We are clearly of the view that the petitioner has not acquired any indefeasible right on the basis of the interview held on February 17, 1994. We further find that the cut off date has a clear nexus, in that it is directly connected with the dissolution of the Oil Selection Boards on March 2, 1994, and the object underlying the Policy decision is to prevent cases where a theoritical possibility of a dissolved Board making a recommenda-tion after the dissolution could not be safely ruled out, As no right had accrued in favour of the petitioner, there was no question of giving him an opportunity of being heard. The decision has been taken by the Ministry at the appropriate level and it is decision governing all cases. In other words, it is not a case of a decision taken in respect of particular individual or some individuals.

12. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in CWP No. 10654 of 1994, which is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1500/-CWP No. 16691 is however, allowed and it is directed that further action on the basis of the recommendations of the interview held on August, 10, 1994, shall be taken without any further delay.

13. Petition dismissed.

Hardev Singh v. Union Of India And Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion: CWP Nos. 10654 & 16691 of 1994

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's (CWP No. 10654) Arguments — Mr. Harbhagwan Singh

Respondents' and Other Petitioner's Arguments — Mr. S.S. Nijjar and Mr. Anil Malhotra

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Hardev Singh v. Union Of India And Others

Comments