Order
1. Leave granted. By an advertisement dated 7-9-1993 Indian Oil Corpn. (the second respondent) invited applications for distributors for Indane from amongst candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes for locations which included Kaithal in the State of Haryana. The advertisement stated that candidates would be eligible if they had a “family … income of not more than Rs 50,000 annually (last financial year)” i.e the year ended 31-3-1993. Applications were required to be made on a prescribed form and be submitted along with enclosures by 15-10-1993.
2. On 14-10-1993 the seventh respondent applied for the Kaithal dealership in response to the advertisement and stated that the annual income of his family was Rs 39,910, drawn as salary by his wife. A Chartered Accountant's certificate in this behalf was enclosed. It appears that the seventh respondent was an ex-MLA and was in that capacity sanctioned pension in the sum of Rs 39,366.70 for the period 6-4-1991 to 30-11-1993 and that for Financial Year 1992-93 the sum of Rs 15,000 thereout was apportioned, withdrawal of the pension amount was made by the seventh respondent on 17-12-1993. These facts appear from a letter dated 7-6-1994 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, to the Assistant Registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court, pursuant to a direction in this behalf made by the High Court.
3. On 24-12-1993 the Oil Selection Board called the seventh respondent for an interview. The letter in this behalf stated that he should bring with him all the relevant documents in support of his statement regarding his annual family income. An affidavit and a declaration in the forms enclosed with the letter were required to be filled in and signed. The affidavit required the seventh respondent to state that the gross annual income of himself, his spouse and dependent children did not exceed Rs 50,000 per annum during the last financial year. The declaration of annual income required the seventh respondent to state specifically what his income from other sources, for example, pension, was. The interview was held on 13-1-1994. The merit list published thereafter showed the seventh respondent to be first and the appellant to be second in order of merit.
4. The appellant challenged the award of the distributorship to the seventh respondent by filing a writ petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the seventh respondent did not fulfil the eligibility conditions for the award of the distributorship because his annual family income for the financial year in question (i.e the year ended 31-3-1993) was more than Rs 50,000. It was the appellant's case that the seventh respondent as an ex-Member of the Haryana Legislative Assembly had been the recipient of pension and had drawn pension amounting to Rs 15,000 during Financial Year 1992-1993 and that he had made a false declaration of income in this behalf. The case of the appellant was contested not only by the seventh respondent, but also by the second respondent. It was argued by the second respondent that the seventh respondent fulfilled the conditions of eligibility. The seventh respondent, in the words of the judgment under appeal, emphatically denied the allegation of the petitioner that the annual income of his family was more than Rs 50,000 during 1992-1993. The High Court, as aforementioned, called for information in regard to the sanction and withdrawal of pension by the seventh respondent and the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, furnished it. The High Court took the view that on 31-3-1993 i.e the date on which Financial Year 1992-1993 ended, the seventh respondent did not have an annual family income of more than Rs 50,000 and, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The High Court's order is under challenge.
5. It is clear from the advertisement that to be eligible a candidate should have had a family income of not more than Rs 50,000 for the year ended 31-3-1993. At the time that he applied the seventh respondent did not have a family income of more than Rs 50,000 for the year ended 31-3-1993. Pension for the year ended 31-3-1993 in the sum of Rs 15,000 was sanctioned to him on 15-10-1993 and he drew the same on 17-12-1993. On and from that date, we are satisfied, the seventh respondent ceased to be eligible to obtain the dealership. His candidature was to be considered pursuant to the letter dated 24-12-1993 calling him for an interview on 13-1-1994. The seventh respondent was legally obliged to disclose at least at the said interview that his family income was no longer just Rs 38,910 for the year ended 31-3-1993 but, by reason of the sum of Rs 15,000 withdrawn by him as pension for that year, exceeded the sum of Rs 50,000. We are unable to accept the arguments on his behalf that his eligibility crystallised on the date of the advertisement and that the additional income that was sanctioned and withdrawn subsequent to that date was not income for Financial Year 1992-1993 and was irrelevant. We fail to appreciate the finding of the High Court that on 31-3-1993 the seventh respondent did not have family income of more than Rs 50,000. The award of the distributorship in question to the seventh respondent is, therefore, not valid.
6. Having regard to the ineligibility of the seventh respondent, who was placed first on the merit list, the distributorship ought to have been awarded to the appellant, who was second in the merit list. Having regard to what has transpired, we think it appropriate to direct that the seventh respondent should cease to act as a dealer for the second respondent, pursuant to the award of the dealership to him as aforesaid, on and from 1-9-1995 and that on and from that date the second respondent should award the dealership to the appellant who would be entitled to conduct business by reason thereof from that date. The appellant shall, of course, be obliged to fulfil all necessary conditions to the satisfaction of the second respondent.
7. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal are set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court is allowed to the extent aforesaid. The seventh respondent shall pay to the appellant the costs of the appeal and the writ petition.