IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 804 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12193 of 2002)

RITU MAHAJAN                                                           .. Appellant

Versus

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.                           ..Respondents  

WITH

I.A. Nos. 213-214 in T.C. (C) No. 100/2002

JUDGMENT  

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In  this  appeal,  we  are  concerned  with  the  issue

regarding  allotment  of  a  Petrol  Pump  at  Dhariwal,

which was reserved for women candidate.  

3. This  appeal  is  filed  against  the  Judgment  and  Order

dated 01.02.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the

Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court,  whereby  the  Writ

Petition  filed  by  the  appellant  was  dismissed  on  the

ground that there was no infirmity in the selection of

fifth  respondent  for  allotment  of  the  Retail  Outlet

Dealership.

4. Indian  Oil  Corporation  –  respondent  No.  1  herein

issued  an  advertisement  in  the  “Tribune”  dated

22.06.2000  whereby  allotment  of  Retail  Outlet

Dealership/SKO-LDU  Dealership  and  LPG

distributorship  was  advertised.   In  the  said

advertisement one retail outlet, which was to be set at

Dhariwal  was  also  advertised.   In  the  said

advertisement, it was mentioned that in respect of the

locations reserved for women only, on receipt of their

application  for  Retail  Outlet  Dealerships/SKO-LDO

Dealerships/LPG  Distributorship,  other  things  being

equal, preference would be given to unmarried women

above  40  years  of  age  and  widows.   It  was  also

mentioned that the Oil Companies would also provide

the above women an adequate working capital for a full

operation  cycle  for  the  operation  of  the

Dealership/Distributorship.   

5. The  appellant  –  Ritu  Mahajan,  deceased  fifth

respondent - Smt. Rani Gauba and others applied for

allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership at Dhariwal, which

was reserved for women only.  Pursuant to receipt of

the said applications the appellant, the deceased fifth

respondent as also others were called for interview on

24.04.2001.    The aforesaid  interview was taken by

Dealers  Selection Board (for  short ‘Board’)  and after

completion  of  the  said  interview  a  merit  list  was

prepared in which the fifth respondent was placed at

first  position  and  the  appellant  was  placed  at  the

second position.   As there was only one outlet to be

allotted  at  Dhariwal,  in  terms of  the  position  in  the

merit  list  the letter  of  intent  was issued to the fifth

respondent.

6. The  appellant  protested  against  the  selection  of  the

fifth  respondent  on  the  ground  that  she  was  not

eligible  to  be  considered  for  selection  and  even

otherwise  she  was  inferior  to  the  appellant  in  all

respects on the basis of the criteria laid down.  The

protest of the appellant, however, did not find favour

with the Corporation or the Board and they refused to

cancel the allotment in favour of the fifth respondent.

7. Consequently the appellant filed a Writ Petition before

the Punjab and Haryana High Court with a prayer for

quashing  of   the  allotment  in  favour  of  the  fifth

respondent with a further prayer that the appellant be

allotted the aforesaid Petrol Pump.  The Division Bench

who heard the matter, however, passed the impugned

order  dated  01.02.2002  holding  that  the  fifth

respondent  was  eligible  for  allotment  of  retail  outlet

dealership and the Board did not commit any illegality

in  selecting  and  recommending  the  name  of  fifth

respondent for allotment of the said dealership.

8. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order of

the  Division  Bench,  the present  appeal  was  filed  on

which we heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and also scrutinized the documents placed on

record.

9. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, learned counsel appearing for

the  appellant  submitted  that  in  terms  of  the

advertisement  for  allotment  of  the  petrol  pump,  the

minimum  educational  qualification  was  matriculation

but  the  fifth  respondent  neither  attached  the

matriculation certificate along with the Application Form

nor  the  same  was  even  produced  at  the  time  of

interview and her application was wrongly entertained

and,  therefore,  the  said  application  was  liable  to  be

dismissed at the threshold. It was also submitted that

even  otherwise  as  per  the  criteria  the  appellant  has

higher merit in all the fields in comparison to the fifth

respondent and, therefore, she deserves to be selected

in preference over the fifth respondent.     

10.Refuting the aforesaid submission, Mr. Rakesh Kumar

Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth

respondent  specifically  stated  that  her  qualification

was matriculation and along with her application she

also produced school leaving certificate, which would

indicate that she had passed her matriculation in the

year 1969.  It was also submitted that fifth respondent

was selected on the  basis  of  overall  assessment,  in

which  she  was  found  by  the  Board  to  be  more

competent  than  the  appellant  and  the  said  decision

having been upheld by the High Court the same should

not be interfered by this Court.

11. It is undisputed that an advertisement was issued for

allotment  of  one  Retail  Outlet  dealership  of  petrol

pump at Dhariwal.  The said petrol pump was reserved

for women category and that other things being equal,

preference was to be given to unmarried women above

40 years of age without earning parents and widows.

In addition, the oil companies were also to provide an

adequate working capital for a full operation cycle for

the  operation  of  the  dealership/distributorship.   The

said amount was to be re-payed in 100 equal monthly

installments alongwith interest @ 11% per annum and

the first installment was to begin from 13th month of

commissioning of dealership.

12.At the time of submitting the application for allotment,

the appellant was 28 years of  age and was married.

She  had  completed  B.E.  (Electricals)  from  Punjab

University,  Patiala  and  had  an  experience  of

approximately about 1 ½ years as an in-charge of R &

D Section of M/s. Standard Electricals Ltd.  The Gross

Income (including self, spouse and dependent children)

was shown to be Rs. 72,376/- p.m. On the other hand

the fifth respondent was alleged to be Matriculate and

was of 47 years of age at the time of submission of

application.  She was a widow and had an experience

of near about 4 years of running a P.C.O.

13.The Board was required to assess and allot marks to

the candidates under three categories and the marks

obtained by the appellant and fifth respondent are as

under:

CATEGORY APPELLANT FIFTH RESPONDENT Personality, Business Ability & Salesmanship 36 38

Educational Qualification & General level of intelligence

55 45

General Assessment 21 27 Total 112 110

Under  the  said  three  categories  the  total  marks

obtained  by  the  appellant  was  more  than  the  fifth

respondent.  But,  there  were  two  more  categories,

namely, Capability to Arrange Finance and Capability

to  provide  Infrastructure  &  Facilities  on  which  also

assessment was made. After marking on the later two

criteria  the  fifth  respondent  was  found  with  the

maximum marks and was placed at Serial No. 1.  

14. The aforesaid findings and the conclusions of the Board

were challenged in writ petition.  It may, however, be

mentioned at this stage that in a case filed before this

Court, titled as  Onkar Lal Bajaj v.  Union of India

the issues with regard to  the allotment of marks, the

criteria followed by the said Board in allotting marks to

various candidates were challenged on the ground that

the selection was based on Political Consideration.  In

the said case, this court by the judgment and order

dated  20-12-2002  reported  in  (2003)  2  SCC  673

constituted a committee of two Judges’ comprising Mr.

Justice S.C. Agarwal, a former Judge of this Court and

Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri, a former Judge of the Delhi High

Court, to examine 413 cases including the present case

pertaining to the allotment to the fifth respondent. The

Committee  constituted  by  this  Court  examined  the

records and submitted a Report.  The relevant portion

of the said report is placed on record as Annexure P-3

at page 120 of the paper book.

15.In the said Report, it was mentioned that on the basis

of the marks awarded by the members of the Board at

the interview, the name of following applicants, in the

order of merit, was published on 24.04.2001:  

(i) Smt. Rani Gauba;

(ii) Smt. Ritu Mahajan; and

(iii) Smt. Paramjeet Kaur.   

It was stated in the said Report that the Board was not

required  to  allot  any  marks  in  two  categories  i.e.

Capability to arrange finance and Capability to provide

Infrastructure  &  Facility  as  the  said  outlet  was  a

Company Owned Company Operated Retail Outlet and

the finance was  to  be made  available  in  easy terms

from the  corpus  funds  to  the  selected  candidates  in

such  reserved  category.   The  Committee,  therefore,

took  out  the  marks  allotted  in  the  aforesaid  two

categories and the total marks obtained by the three

candidates were found as follows:

Personality, Business Ability  & Salesman Ship

Educational Qualification  & & Gen. Level of  Intelligence

General Assessment

Total

No. 1 Rani Gauba

38 45 27 110

No. 2, Ritu Mahajan

36 55 21 112

No. 3  Sagarika

39 40 22 101

16.On the face of the Total Marks obtained, the committee

found that the appellant comes at serial No. 1 with 112

marks, while the fifth respondent comes at serial No. 2

with  110  marks.  The  Committee,  thereafter,  having

recorded the aforesaid findings proceeded to examine

whether there was any arbitrary allotment of marks to

any  of  the  candidates  and  on  examining  the  first

category, namely, Educational Qualification & General

Level  of  Intelligence  it  was  found  that  the  fifth

respondent is matriculate whereas the appellant – Ritu

Mahajan is B.E. (Electrical).   Upon considering the said

qualifications, it was found that the allotment of equal

marks viz.  25 by the Chairman to the appellant and

fifth  respondent  was  unjustified  and  was  held  as

arbitrary.   So  far  as  the  category  with  respect  to

Personality,  Business  ability  and  Salesmanship  is

concerned  the  committee  observed  that  the  fifth

respondent was running PCO since 1996 whereas the

appellant – Ritu Mahajan was working as Incharge of R

& D Section of M/s Standard Electricals Ltd. in 1995-97,

and  therefore,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  fifth

respondent  is  having  better  experience  than  the

appellant.  The two members allotted better marks to

appellant  than  the  fifth  respondent  whereas  the

Chairman allotted higher marks to fifth respondent as

compared with appellant.  In this view of the matter

the Committee held that the Chairman allotted marks

arbitrarily  to  tilt  the  balance  in  favour  of  the  fifth

respondent.   So  far  as  General  Assessment  is

concerned, it was found that the higher marks given by

the  Chairman  to  the  fifth  respondent  again  were

unjustified.  The Committee,  therefore,  held that the

allotment made in favour of the fifth respondent was

not on merits.    

17.The  aforesaid  comparison  of  merits  is  based  on

relevant  records  and  therefore  the  scrutiny  and

conclusions arrived at by the Committee cannot be said

to  be  in  any  manner  arbitrary  or  unjustified.   The

Committee has appreciated the respective merit of the

two candidates and on such appreciation has come to a

finding  that  the  appellant  is  a  better  candidate  for

which it has given cogent and valid reasons.   

18. We have also scrutinized the records submitted by the

parties and on bare perusal of the same, we find that

the  appellant  was  more  meritorious  than  the  fifth

respondent on all counts.  For the operation of the said

outlet  finance  was  to  be  provided  by  the  Oil

Corporation, which was to be re-payed in 100 equal

monthly  installments  alongwith  interest  @  11%  per

annum and the first installment was to begin from 13th

month of commissioning of dealership. Thus Capability

to  arrange  finance  and  Capability  to  provide

Infrastructure & Facility could not have been relevant

and material criteria. On that score we fully endorse

the opinion of the committee constituted by this Court.

We  may  also  mention  that  in  the  present  case  no

preference  could  have  been  given  to  the  fifth

respondent as the same was to be given to unmarried

women above 40 years of age without earning parents

and widows only on other things being equal. In the

present  case  as  also  held  by  the  committee  the

appellant was higher in merit in comparison to the fifth

respondent in all the criteria and thus all the factors

and consideration cannot be said to be equal.

19. The said report of the committee was upheld by this

Court in Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of India

being  Transferred  Case  (Civil)  No.  100  of  2002

reported in (2007) 2 SCC 536. In the present case an

objection  is  filed  by the fifth  respondent  against  the

report of the Committee.  In view of our findings and

conclusions recorded hereinbefore, it is held that the

objection has no merit.  We accept the report having

found the same as valid and legal.

20.We are of the considered opinion that the ratio of the

decision in Mukund Swarup (supra) would become fully

applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

In  terms  of  the  said  judgment  and  order  the  fifth

respondent was liable to vacate the said retail outlet at

Dhariwal within 3 months from 12-01-2007. However

as the applications filed by the fifth respondent were

not  disposed  of  the  status  quo  was  directed  to  be

maintained.  

21.In  that  view  of  the  matter,  the  selection  of  fifth

respondent for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership at

Dhariwal is set aside and the Indian Oil Corporation –

respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to make allotment

of  the  said  Retail  Outlet  Dealership  at  Dhariwal  in

favour  of  the  appellant  immediately.   The  appeal  is

allowed accordingly.  

22.I.A.  Nos.  213-214  in  T.C.  (C)  No.  100/2002  are

disposed of accordingly.

........................................... .J

    [S.B. Sinha]

    ............................................J   [Dr. Mukundakam

Sharma]

New Delhi February 9, 2009