IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4456           OF 2010

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.228 of 2009)

Smt. Monika Gupta ……Appellant

Versus

Union of India and others ……Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi,  J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Having  failed  to  convince  the  Division  Bench  of  Allahabad  High  

Court  that  order  dated  29.7.2008  passed  by  respondent  No.3  –  Chief  

Regional  Manager,  Hindustan  Petroleum  Corporation  Limited,  Regional  

Office  Loni,  District  Ghaziabad  (U.P.)  cancelling  the  panel/merit-list  

prepared by the Selection Committee on 29.8.2007 for appointment of LPG  

distributor at Nawabganj, District Farukhabad (U.P.) is vitiated by an error  

of law, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3. In  response  to  advertisement  dated  9.2.2004  issued  by  respondent  

No.3,  ten persons including the appellant  and respondent  No.4 submitted  

applications  for  appointment  as  LPG  distributor  at  Nawabgunj.   The  

Selection Committee interviewed the eligible candidates on 29.8.2007 and  

awarded marks in accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph 13 of  

the brochure issued by respondent No.2 – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation  

Ltd.  The appellant was placed at No.1 in the panel/merit-list prepared by the  

Selection Committee. Smt. Anjali Gangwar and Smt. Ragini Bhardwaj were  

placed at Nos.2 and 3 respectively.   

4. Smt.  Ragini  Bhardwaj  filed  Writ  Petition  No.43531  of  2007  and  

prayed for  issue of  direction to respondent  Nos.2 and 3 to prepare  fresh  

panel/merit list by asserting that the Selection Committee had not awarded  

the  marks  as  per  the  criteria  specified  in  the  brochure.   The  same  was  

disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court on 17.9.2007 by taking  

note of the statement made by counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that  

the grievance of the writ petitioner will be considered and her representation  

will be decided within four weeks after giving opportunity of hearing.  Writ  

2

Petition No.48817 of 2007 filed by respondent No.4 was also disposed of in  

similar terms.

5. In  furtherance  of  the  orders  passed  by the  High Court,  respondent  

No.3 issued notices  to the selected candidates  and respondent No.4,  who  

filed  their  respective  claims.   After  giving  them opportunity  of  personal  

hearing,  respondent  No.3  passed  an  order  dated  29.7.2008  whereby  he  

cancelled the  panel/merit-list  and decided that  fresh list  will  be prepared  

after interviewing the candidates and evaluating their inter-se merit.   The  

relevant portions of that order, as contained in Annexure P.5 filed with SLP  

(C) No.228 of 2009, are reproduced below:

“Such  investigation  revealed  that  as  regards  the  complaints  made by Smt. Anjali Gangwar and Smt. Ragini Bhardwaj, the  said complaints  do not  attract  any change in the merit  panel  based on the contents of the complaints made by Smt. Meena  Gangwar revealed that there was an anomaly in the award of  marks whereby Smt. Meena Gangwar should have been given  30 marks in respect of ‘infrastructure’.

However,  considering  that  such  erroneous  evaluation  at  the  level-1  committee  in  the  interview  and  selection  made  29.8.2007  itself,  such  erroneous  evaluation  calls  for  cancellation of the merit panel itself which thereby results in  the cancellation of the entire selection.  Accordingly, the higher  management had considered cancellation of the entire selection  panel  and  thereby  hold  a  fresh  evaluation  and  interview  whereby  proper  scrutiny  of  all  applications  shall  be  ensured  towards which all those eligible candidates would face a fresh  

3

interview and a new selection panel thereby awarding a fresh  opportunity to all such eligible applicants.

Thus  in  compliance  of  the  orders  dated  17.9.2007  and  11.10.2007 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in  the  above  mentioned  writ  petitions,  this  speaking  order  is  hereby  pronounced  and  the  three  complaints  made  by  Smt.  Anjali  Gangwar,  Smt.  Ragini  Bhardwaj  and  Smt.  Meena  Gangwar dated 6.9.2007 nip sent NZ on 9.9.2007 and 3.9.2007  respectively are hereby finally disposed of.”

6. The appellant  challenged the aforementioned order in Writ  Petition  

No.39842  of  2008  by  contending  that  in  view  of  the  provisions  of  the  

brochure  issued  by  respondent  No.2,  the  documents  allegedly  filed  by  

respondent No.4 after submission of the application form were rightly not  

considered  by  the  Selection  Committee  for  the  purpose  of  assessing  her  

merit.   The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition  

with an observation that the documents submitted by respondent No.4 before  

the date of interview ought to have been considered for the purpose of award  

of marks and respondent No.3 was justified in cancelling the panel/merit list  

because the assessment made by the Selection Committee was not correct.

7. Shri  M.N.  Krishnamani,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because the  

Division Bench of the High Court failed to notice that in terms of paragraph  

4

8 of the brochure issued by respondent No.2, the details given along with the  

application  form  about  the  availability  of  suitable  godown/land  for  

construction  of  godown  for  storage  of  LPG cylinders  and  shop/land  for  

construction of shop for gas showroom or a firm commitment from the land  

owner for sale/lease could only be taken into consideration for the purpose  

of award of marks and as respondent No.4 had not furnished the necessary  

details  along  with  the  application  form and  the  required  documents,  her  

grievance  against  the  award  of  marks  by  the  Selection  Committee  was  

totally  misconceived.   Learned  senior  counsel  submitted  that  respondent  

No.3 committed serious error by cancelling the panel/merit list ignoring that  

the application form submitted by her was defective on more than one count.  

He  then  argued  that  the  Selection  Committee  had rightly  not  taken  into  

consideration affidavit dated 8.3.2004 of Ramnath son of Janki Singh Yadav  

and copy of registered sale deed dated 9.3.2004 executed by Shri Shivnath  

Singh in favour of Rajesh Kumar Gangwar (husband of respondent No.4)  

because the very filing of these documents was shrouded with mystery.  Shri  

Mani  emphasized  that  copy  of  the  registered  sale  deed  dated  9.3.2004  

executed by Shri Shivnath Singh in favour of Shri Rajesh Kumar Gangwar  

(husband  of  respondent  No.4)  could  not  have  been  submitted  to  the  

competent  authority  because  it  was  presented  before  Sub-Registrar,  

5

Kayamganj for the purpose of registration between 2 to 3 p.m. and the place  

where it was required to be filed is at a distance of 200 kms.  Learned senior  

counsel  also invited  the  court’s  attention  to  the  copies  of  affidavit  dated  

25.11.2008 and representations dated 29.11.2008 and 5.12.2008 submitted  

by  Ramnath  son  of  Shri  Janki  Singh  Yadav,  resident  of  Nawabganj  to  

various functionaries of respondent No.2 to show that respondent No.4 had  

furnished a fake affidavit of Ramnath wherein he is said to have given an  

undertaking to make available his shop to respondent No.4 on rent for the  

purpose of showroom.  

8. Shri  Gopal  Subramanium,  learned  Solicitor  General  appearing  for  

respondent No.2 fairly stated that in her application form, respondent No.4  

had not indicated the availability of godown or land for godown and the  

showroom but submitted that it will be in the interest of justice if respondent  

No.2  is  allowed  to  issue  a  fresh  advertisement  for  allotment  of  LPG  

distributorship because no defined procedure was followed by the authorities  

for entertaining the applications.  Learned Solicitor General pointed out that  

even  though the  applications  and documents  produced  by the  candidates  

contain particular dates, no record is available evidencing the actual receipt  

thereof on the particular date and this is likely to give rise to a suspicion that  

6

the  documents  were  accepted  after  the  last  date  fixed  for  receipt  of  

application.  

9. Smt. Rekha Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.4 argued that  

the panel/merit-list prepared on 29.8.2007 was rightly cancelled because her  

client  was  not  awarded  marks  under  the  heading  ‘infrastructure’  in  

accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph 13 of the brochure.

10. We have considered the respective submissions and carefully scanned  

the  records  including  the  files  made  available  by  the  learned  Solicitor  

General, which contain the applications and documents of the appellant and  

respondent No.4.   

11. Paragraphs  8  and  13  of  the  brochure  issued  by  respondent  No.2,  

which have bearing on the decision of this appeal are as under:

“8. CONSTRUCTION  OF  GODOWN/SHOWROOM  ON  THE SITE AS MENTIONED IN APPLICATION FORM

The  applicant  who  readily  has  suitable  godown/land  for  construction of  godown for  storage filled LPG cylinders  and  LPG cylinders and shop/land for construction of shop for HP  GAS showroom for setting up of HP GAS Distributorship or  have  a  firm  commitment  from  the  land  owner  for  purchase/lease or can arrange it are awarded marks.  The details  given along with the application alone will be considered for  

7

this purpose and the applicant will not be given any opportunity  to  offer  any  other  land  subsequently  even  at  the  time  of  interview.   For  this  purpose,  the  land  owned  by  the  family  applicant  subject  to  attaching  the  consent  of  the  concerned  family members.  LPG will decide the suitability of the land on  the  basis  of  the  documents  submitted  along  with  the  application. However, after selection of the applicant, physical  verification  of  the  godown  land/godown  as  well  as  the  showroom will be undertaken.  In the event it is found that there  is variance in the details submitted with the application form  and or the plot is not found suitable for construction of godown  or the godown is not approved by CCOE the allotment of the  distributorship will stand automatically cancelled.

If an applicant, after selection of the above basis, is unable to  available make godown duly approved by the Chief Controller  of Explosives on the land/godown indicated in the application  and/or showroom as per the oil company’s standard layout on  the land/shop indicated in the application, then the allotment of  HP  GAS  Distributorship  made  to  the  applicant  will  automatically stand cancelled.

13. NORMS FOR EVALUATING THE CANDIDATES

The LPG distributor will be selected on the basis of evaluation  of all eligible applicants on the following parameters.

a) Capability to provide infrastructure* 35 marks

b) Capability to provide finance* 35 marks

c) Educational qualifications** 15 marks

d. Age** 4 marks

e. Experience 4 marks

f. Business ability/acumen 5 marks

8

g. Personality** 2 marks

Total marks 100  

The evaluation on the parameters a to d above will be done on  the  basis  of  the  information  given  in  the  application.   The  evaluation on the parameter e, e and g will be done based on the  interview.”

12. We shall decide this appeal by assuming that the applications of all  

the candidates had been received by the competent authority before the last  

date  because  it  is  not  the  case  of  either  party  that  the  applications  were  

submitted by the candidates after the last date fixed for receipt thereof i.e.  

9.3.2004.  In clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 17 of the application form, the  

candidates were required to indicate in yes/no, the availability of land/plot  

for godown and the showroom.  While the appellant had scored out ‘No’ in  

both the clauses and thereby indicated that land was available for godown  

and she also had a showroom, respondent No.4 did not score out ‘Yes’ or  

‘No’.  This is sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the date on which  

respondent No.4 is said to have submitted the application, she did not have  

land for godown or showroom.   It is borne out from the files produced by  

the  learned  Solicitor  General  that  along  with  her  application  form,  the  

appellant had annexed various documents showing her financial status and  

copies of the sale deeds and site plans showing the availability of land for  

9

godown and showroom.  As against this, respondent No.4 did not annex any  

document along with the application form to show that land was available  

for  godown or  showroom.   Later  on,  she  is  said  to  have  submitted  two  

affidavits which are shown to have been notarized on 8.3.2004.  The stamp  

papers on which the affidavits were prepared bear the dates of purchase as  

4.3.2004 and 5.3.2004.  One of these affidavits is of respondent No.4 herself.  

The other is the affidavit of Ramnath son of Shri Janki Singh Yadav resident  

of Jaisinghpur, Tehsil Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, who is said to have  

agreed to provide his shop for the purpose of showroom to respondent No.4  

in case she was selected for LPG distributorship.  The file of respondent  

No.4 also contains photostat copy of the sale deed executed by Shri Shivnath  

Singh son of late Shri Makrant Singh, resident of village Bhatasa Pargana  

Shamshabad, West Tehsil Kayamganj, in favour of Rajesh Kumar Gangwar  

(husband  of  respondent  No.4).    The  sale  deed  is  shown  to  have  been  

presented before Sub-Registrar, Kayamganj between 2 to 3 p.m. on 9.3.2004  

and was registered on the same day.  However, the two affidavits and the  

photostat copy of the sale deed do not contain any endorsement showing the  

date of receipt.   

10

13. The application of all the candidates are shown to have scrutinized on  

18.7.2004.  In clause 13 of the scrutiny form, which enables the Scrutiny  

Officer  to  record  his  observations,  the  following  note  was  recorded  in  

respect of the application form of respondent No.4:

Columns 11 and 17 not filled.

1. LIC  and  other  assets  shown  but  no  relevant  documents  attached.

2. There is one affidavit for showroom but no other details.

3. Sale deed for the land is there but no other details about the  size, location etc.

The applications were again scrutinized on 5.1.2007.  This time no  

observation  has  been  recorded  in  column 12  of  the  application  form of  

respondent No.4.

14. The Selection Committee awarded marks to the candidates as per the  

criteria  embodied  in  para  13  of  the  brochure.   The  details  of  the  marks  

awarded to the candidates have been incorporated in a tabular form in the  

impleadment application (IA No.5/2010) filed by Smt. Anjali Gangwar, who  

was  placed  at  No.2  in  the  panel/merit-list  prepared  by  the  Selection  

Committee on 29.8.2007.  The same are extracted below:

11

S. No.

Name of the  candidate

Capability to provide land  infrastructure  

Capability  to  provide  finance

Educational  qualification

Age Experience Business  ability/ acumen

Personality Total Marks

Godown Showroom Max Marks 25 10 35 15 4 4 5 2 100

1 Ragini  Bhardwaj

10 0 0.6 10 4 0 3 1 28.60

2 Kamlesh  Yadav

0 0 4.22 10 4 0 2 1 21.22

3 Monika  Gupta

18 0 5.2 7 2 0 5 2 39.20

4 Meena  Gangwar

0 0 6.73 10 4 0 3.33 1.66 25.72

5 Om Wati 0 0 6.2 8 4 0 1.33 1 20.53 6 Seema  

Yadav 10 0 5 7 4 0 1 1 28.00

7 Kanti Devi 0 0 3 7 4 0 2.33 1.33 17.66 8 Anjali  

Gangwar 10 5 0 7 4 0 2.66 1.33 29.99

9 Sudha  Gangwar

ABSENT

10 Urmila INELIGIBLE

15. Since  the  appellant  secured  highest  marks  (39.20),  her  name  was  

placed at No.1 in the panel/merit list.  The names of Smt. Anjali Gangwar  

and  Smt.  Ragini  Bhardwaj,  who  secured  29.99  and  28.60  marks  

respectively, were placed at Nos.2 and 3.  Respondent No.4 secured 25.72  

marks  and,  therefore,  her  name  did  not  figure  among  the  first  three  

candidates.   

16. While  awarding  marks  to  the  candidates,  the  Selection  Committee  

must have taken note of the condition enshrined in para 8 of the brochure by  

which it was made clear that the details given with the application alone will  

be considered. At the cost of repetition, we consider it necessary to observe  

12

that  respondent  No.4  had neither  given  any  indication  in  the  application  

form about the availability of land for godown and/or showroom and nor she  

annexed any document to show that she had secured lease of land or the  

godown  and  the  showroom necessary  for  operating  LPG distributorship,  

therefore, the Selection Committee had rightly awarded zero marks to her  

under the heading ‘infrastructure’.  The file of her application does contain  

an  affidavit  dated  8.3.2004  of  Ramnath,  who  is  said  to  have  agreed  to  

provide his shop for the purpose of godown.  Respondent No.4 is also shown  

to  have  submitted photostat  copy of  the  sale  deed executed  by  Shivnath  

Singh in favour of her husband, Shri Rajesh Kumar Gangwar, which was  

registered  on  9.3.2004.   However,  as  mentioned  above  neither  of  these  

documents bears the date on which the same were actually filed/received by  

the  competent  authority.  The  stamp  paper  on  which  the  affidavit  of  

respondent No.4 has been recorded bears the date of purchase as 4.3.2004  

and the stamp paper on which the affidavit of Ramnath son of Shri Janki  

Singh has been recorded bears the date of purchase as 5.3.2004.  If the stamp  

papers had been purchased well before the last date fixed for the submission  

of application form, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to fathom any  

reason why the affidavits were not prepared and notarized before 7.3.2004  

and filed along with the application form and why in para 17 (b) of the  

13

application form, respondent No.4 had not written the word ‘Yes’ indicating  

the availability of shop for the purpose of showroom.  The submission of the  

copy  of  sale  deed  dated  9.3.2004  before  the  last  date  specified  in  the  

advertisement  is  highly  improbable.   Undisputedly,  the  sale  deed  was  

presented before Sub-Registrar, Kayamganj on 9.3.2004 between 2-3 PM.  

The registration of the document must have taken some time (at least half an  

hour).  Therefore, it was impossible for respondent No.4 to file/submit the  

document before the competent authority at Farrukhabad before the close of  

the office hours because the distance between the two places is 200 kms.

17. From the above analysis of the application forms and documents filed  

by respondent No.4, it is clear that the Selection Committee did not commit  

any error by awarding ‘zero’ marks to her under the heading “Capability to  

provide land and infrastructure for godown and showroom”.  As a corollary,  

we hold that the decision of respondent No.3 to cancel the panel/merit list on  

the ground that the Selection Committee had erred in not awarding 30 marks  

to  respondent  No.4  under  the  heading  ‘infrastructure’  was  legally  

unsustainable.  Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court failed  

to notice that in para 17 of the application form, respondent No.4 had not  

indicated the availability of land for godown and/or showroom and that in  

14

view of the language of para 8 of the brochure, the Selection Committee had  

no option but  to ignore  affidavit  dated 8.3.2004 of  Ramnath son of  Shri  

Janki Singh and copy of sale deed dated 9.3.2004 executed by Shri Shivnath  

Singh in  favour  of  Shri  Rajesh  Kumar  Gangwar  (husband of  respondent  

No.4) for the purpose of awarding marks.   We have no doubt that if the  

Division Bench had summoned the relevant records and perused the same, it  

would have discovered that the application of respondent No.4 was laconic  

in material respects and the Selection Committee had rightly awarded zero  

marks  to  her  under  the  heading  ‘infrastructure’.   In  any  case,  we  are  

convinced  that  respondent  No.3  committed  serious  error by  recording  a  

finding that respondent No.4 was entitled to 30 marks under the heading  

‘infrastructure’.     

18. The submission of the learned Solicitor General that the Court may  

allow respondent  Nos.2  and  3  to  re-advertise  the  LPG distributorship  in  

question  because  no  discernible  method  was  followed  by  the  concerned  

authorities for receiving the applications and documents sounds attractive  

but in the facts of this case we are not inclined to accept the same because  

that would cause serious prejudice to appellant who was duly selected and  

placed at No.1 in the panel/merit list.     

15

19. In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order of the High  

Court as also order dated 29.7.2008 passed by respondent No.3 are set aside  

and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to take necessary steps for allotment  

of  distributorship  in  accordance  with  the  panel/merit-list  prepared by the  

Selection Committee on 29.8.2007.  The needful should be done within a  

period of  one month from the date  of  production/receipt  of  copy of  this  

order.  The parties are left to bear their own costs.

20. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, I.A. No.5 of 2010 filed by  

Smt. Anjali Gangwar for impleadment as party is disposed of.

   .….………………….…J.  [G.S. Singhvi]

…..…..………………..J.  [Asok Kumar Ganguly]

New Delhi May 13, 2010.   

16