Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Madras High Court
M.Mouhammadhou Arshadh vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 1 March, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE H IGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.03.2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.Nos.22243 and 22244 of 2010

M.Mouhammadhou Arshadh					... Petitioner in 
									both petitions
					Vs.

1.Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
   Rep. by its Executive Director,
   Tamil Nadu State Office,
   Marketing Division,
   139, Nungambakkam High Road,
   Chennai - 600 034.
   Tamil Nadu.

2.Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager,
   Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 
   Marketing Division,
   Trichy Divisional Office,
   "Triveni", 3rd Floor,
   B-35, Shastri Road,
   Thillai Nagar,
   Trichy - 620 018.
								... Respondents in both
								    petitions
PRAYER IN W.PNo.22243 of 2010: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents culminating in the impugned communication of the 2nd respondent dated 26.08.2010 bearing reference TCHDO/Marapalam Jn., quash the same and direct the respondents to hold the interview afresh after suitable replacement of clause 6.2.3.1 of the Guidelines for Selection of Service Provider for Operation of COCOs by providing for all the applicants, particularly applicants in the age group of 21 to 29 years are also given marks under the head/parameter 'age' and all applicants are marked for a maximum of 100 marks without any discrimination on the basis of age and pass such further orders.
PRAYER IN W.PNo.22244 of 2010: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the Guidelines for Selection of Service Provider for Operation of COCOs, quash Clause 6.2.3.1 therein and direct the respondents to reframe Clause 6.2.3.1 in such a manner that all the applicants, particularly applicants in the age group of 21 to 29 years are also given marks under the head/parameter 'age' and all applicants are marked for a maximum of 100 marks without any discrimination on the basis of age and pass such further orders.
	For Petitioner 	
	in both petitions		:Mr.M.Sundar
	For Respondents 		
	in both petitions		:Mr.Abdul Saleem
					for M/s.Anand, Abdul & Vinoth Associates
					     
					
COMMON ORDER
	The petitioner is an Engineering Graduate in Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech degree) Information Technology and he has been working as a Manager in one Sarathe Agency, an Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Dealer at 8/3, Nagore Main Road (near ONGC), Neravy Main Road, Karaikal.  When there was a notice by the 1st respondent issued in the Hindu Newspaper dated 27.04.2010 for engagement of Service Provider for its Corporation Owned and Corporation Operated Retail Outlets (COCO) inviting applications from eligible individuals and other entities for being appointed as service provider for COCO outlets, the petitioner has also applied for the same.  Though the petitioner, after passing through selection process was awarded 84 out of 100 marks, other candidates, who participated like the petitioner, having been awarded 86 out of 100 marks, were wrongly equated with the petitioner and as a result, the labour contract was not given to the petitioner.  Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that only on the age criteria he was discriminated by not providing any marks for his age of 27, when others, above 30 years of age, were allotted marks.  On that basis, he also brought to the notice of the Court the guidelines issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, wherein it was mentioned that as per the eligibility criteria, any individual having minimum age of 21 years, is eligible to apply for getting service providership.  As per the guidelines of 6.2.3.1, the age group, namely 21 to 29, was not awarded any marks.  In the matter of allotment of awarding marks, persons at the age of 30 to 45, 45 to 60 and 60 to 65 years are awarded 10, 5 and 3 marks respectively, therefore, the petitioner being at the age of 27, was not awarded any single mark.  Therefore, he contended that, since no mark is contemplated in the guidelines for the age group between 21 to 29, the same is not only arbitrary, but also violative of equality clause and on that basis, he prayed for setting aside the selection process with a further prayer to issue a direction to hold fresh enquiry.  

	2. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the entire guidelines challenged by the petitioner is only in line with the policy circular No.P-19011/9/2001-IOC issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.  Further, he contended that the petitioner, unfortunately, has not impleaded the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.  Therefore, for non joinder of the necessary party, namely, Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, sought for dismissing the writ petition.  Secondly, it was contended that the petitioner was well aware of the guidelines issued on the basis of the circular No.160-09/2009, dated 25.09.2009, at the time of his application sent to the respondents.  Having known the fact that the petitioner's category, namely, the age group of 21 to 29 are not given any mark in the advertisement, he has not challenged the selection process.  But, after participating in the selection process and being not selected by not securing requisite marks, a defeated candidate cannot challenge the selection process, for the reason that when he participated in the selection process, he has accepted the terms and conditions and therefore, the petitioner may not be allowed to complain that the conditions imposed in the guidelines are unreasonable and arbitrary.

	3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

	4. It is admittedly true that the guidelines were issued to all the candidates and accordingly, marks were allotted according to their age.  But, in the case of age group falling between 21 and 29, no marks were allotted.  The petitioner has admitted a fact that he has downloaded the detailed guidelines pertaining to the selection of service provider for COCO's from the official website of IOC.  Therefore, he was aware of the fact that under the parameter of age, marks have been allotted for individuals and non-individuals.  In the case of "individuals", for age equal to or more than 30 years, but less than 45 years as on date of publication, 10 marks would be allotted.  For age equal to or more than 45 years, but less than 60 years, 5 marks would be allotted and for age equal to or more than 60 years, but less than 65 years, 3 marks would be allotted.  These informations were obtained by the petitioner only from the website.  Therefore, it goes to show that he was fully aware of the marks system well in advance and also the fact that he would not be alloted marks under the parameter "age", since he is falling in the age group of 21 years to 29 years.  When he was fully aware of the fact that he is outside the scope of the age group between 30 years and 65 years, his further statement that he was not aware of the marks for the age group between 21 years and 29 years is not the fault of the respondent.  Further, the awarding of marks has been made in such a way to give priority to the elder persons, on the presumption that they are fastly running to cross the age limit.  Such policy of the respondent cannot be found fault with.  After the selection was over, the COCO at Marapalam Junction has already been handed over to the newly appointed service provider on 8th August, 2010, who is presently operating in line with the company's guidelines.  Hence, for the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petitions to interfere with the guidelines issued by the respondents.  Accordingly, the writ petition in W.P.No.22243 of 2010 is dismissed.

	5. In view of the dismissal of W.P.No.22243 of 2010, the 2nd writ petition in W.P.No.22244 of 2010 is also stand dismissed.  No Costs.  Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
										01.03.2011
Index	   : Yes								
Internet:Yes
rkm

										

To

1.Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
   Rep. by its Executive Director,
   Tamil Nadu State Office,
   Marketing Division,
   139, Nungambakkam High Road,
   Chennai - 600 034.
   Tamil Nadu.

2.Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager,
   Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 
   Marketing Division,
   Trichy Divisional Office,
   "Triveni", 3rd Floor,
   B-35, Shastri Road,
   Thillai Nagar,
   Trichy - 620 018.




















T.RAJA,J.

Rkm W.P.Nos.22243 and 22244 of 2010 01.03.2011