RITU MAHAJANversusINDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.

                        (2009) 1 S.C.R. 1126


A                         RITU MAHAJAN
                                 V.
               INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 804 of 2009)
                        FEBRUARY 9, 2009
B
     [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.)

       Public Distribution - Allotment of petrol pump -
  Reservation for woman category - Preference to be given to
C unmarried woman above 40 years without earning parents and
  widow, other things being equal -Allotment in favour of widow
  aged 47 years as per merit list - Challenge to, by unmarried
  woman aged 28 years - Dismissal of writ petition - On appeal
  held: Unsuccessful candidate was higher in merit in
o comparison to allottee in all the criteria thus, all factors and
  consideration cannot be said to be equal - No preference
  could be given to allottee - Capability to arrange for finance
                                                                     . ..
  and provide infrastructure not a relevant criteria - Selection
  of allottee set aside - Oil Corporation to make allotment in
E favour of the unsuccessful candidate.

      Respondent no. 1-0il Corporation issued
  advertisement for allotment of petrol pump. The said
  location was reserved for woman category and that the
  other things being equal, preference was to be given to
F unmarried woman above 40 years of age without earning
  parents and widows. Appellant aged 28 years, was
  married and had a B.E. Electrical degree and in charge
  of R & D Section of a Company. Fifth respondent aged
  47 years, was a widow. She was matriculate and had 4
G years experience in running PCO. They both along with
  others applied for allotment of petrol pump. In terms of
  the merit list, fifth respondent was selected for allotment.
  Appellant challenged the same. The Corporation and the
  Selection Board upheld the selection. Appellant filed writ
H                               1126
         RITU MAHAJAN v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.         1127


    1
        petition challenging selection of fifth respondent for        A
        allotment, which was dismissed. Hence the present
        matters.

             Disposing of the matters, the Court

              HELD:1.1. The Committee constituted by this Court       B
        examined the records pertaining to the allotment to the
        fifth respondent and submitted a Report. 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. On     c
        examining the three categories, namely, Personality,
        Business ability and Salesmans,hip, Educational
        Qualification and General Level of Intelligence and
        General Assessment, the Committee held that the
        allotment made in favour of the fifth respondent was not      D
-· '    on merits. The 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
        appreciated the respective merit of the two candidates        E
        and on such appreciation came to a finding that the
        appellant is a better candidate for which it gave cogent
        and valid reasons. [Paras 14, 16 and 17) [1133-C-D; 1134-
        D-H; 1135-A-D]

             1.2. On scrutinizing the records and on bare perusal     F
.       of the same, it is found 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 repaid
        in 100 equal monthly installments alongwith interest @        G
        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. The opinion of the committee constituted   H
    1128           SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A by this Court is endorsed. In the instant 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. The appellant was higher in
8 merit in comparison to the fifth respondent in all the
  criteria and thus all the factors and consideration cannot
  be said to be equal. [Para 18] [1135-D-G]

       1.3. As regard the objection filed by the fifth
  respondent against the report of the Committee, in view
C of the findings and conclusions recorded, the objection
  has no merit. The report is accepted having found the
  same as valid and legal. [Para 19] [1136-A-B]

         1.4. The selection of fifth respondent for allotment of
o   Retail Outlet Dealership is set aside and the respondent
                                                                    ;   ·-
    No. 1-lndian Oil Corporation is directed to make allotment
    of the said Retail Outlet Dealership in favour of the
    appellant immediately. [Para 21] [1136-D-E]

         Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of India (2007) 2 SCC
E 536, Held applicable.

         Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 673,
    referred to.
                                                                    l
                         Case Law Reference:
F
         (2003) 2 sec 673          Referred to.         Para 14
         (2001) 2 sec 536          Held applicable.     Para 19

       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 804
G of 2009.

        From the final Judgment and Order dated 1.2.2002 of the
    High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.
    7803 of 2001.
H
  RITU MAHAJAN v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS. 1129


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

       Raghenth Basant [for Gopal Subramonium A.S.G.,(A.C.)
 for the Appellant.
                                                                      B
    Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Yashraj Singh Deora, T.S.
Sararish (for M/s. K.L. Mehta &Co.) Dr. Rashmi Khanna, Alok
Kumar, Pranav Vyas, Shilja Sinha (for Surya Kant) H.K. Puri
and T.A. Khan (for P. Parmeswaram) for the Respondents.
                                                                      c
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     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           D
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        E
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 F
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 G
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 H
    1130         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
8 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
C 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.

D      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 favm
E 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
F 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
G 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
H the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also
        RITU MAHAJAN v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS. 1131
                [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

      scrutinized the documents placed on record.                         A
             9. Mr. Yashraj Singh Oeora, 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
                                                                          8
      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   C
      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             o
- "   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          E
      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     F
      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          G
      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           H
    1132       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A 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 Yi years as an in-
B 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
C widow and had an experience of near about 4 years of running
  aP.C.O.

       13. The Board was required to assess and allot marks to
  the candidates under three categories and the marks obtained
0 by the appellant and fifth respondent are as under:
    CATEGORY                          APPELLANT FIFTH
                                                                      .   -
                                                RESPONDENT

    Personality, Business              36              38
E   Ability & Salesmanship

    Educational Qualification          55              45
    & General level of intelligence

F   General Assessment                 21              27

    Total                             112              110

       Under the said three categories the total marks obtained
G 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
H marks and was placed at Serial No. 1.
                     '
 RITU MAHAJAN v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS. 1133
         [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

      14. The aforesaid findings and the conclusions of the           A
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       B
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 sec 673 constituted a
committee of two Judges' comprising Mr. Justice S.C.
Agarwal, a former Judge of this Court and Mr. Justice P.K.            c
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-         0
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:                                          E

     (i) Smt. Rani Gauba;

     (ii) Smt. Ritu Mahajan; and

     (iii) Smt. Paramjeet Kaur.                                       F

     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 G
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 H
    1134          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A candidates were found as follows:
                   Personality,     Educational General        Total
                    Business        Qualification Assess-
                   Ability          & Gen. Level ment
                   Salesman         Intelligence
B                  Ship &

    No. 1 Rani            38              45             27     110
    Gauba

    No. 2, Ritu           36              55             21     112
c   Mahajan
    No. 3                 39              40             22     101
    Sagarika

D
          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        •
E   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
F   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
G   PCO since 1996 whereas the appellant - Ritu Mahajan was
    working as lncharge of R & D Section of M/s Standard
    Electricals Ltd. in 1995-97, and therefore, it cannot be said thaf
    the fifth respondent is having better experience than the
    appellant. The two members allotted better marks to appellant
H   than the fifth respondent whereas the Chairman allotted higher
       RITU MAHAJAN v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS. 1135
               [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

       marks to fifth respondent as compared with appellant. In this           A
       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,            B
       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             C
       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.
                                                                               D
....         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-paid in 100        E
       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          F
       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            G
       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            H
    1136        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A Court in Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of India being
  Transferred Case (Civil) No. 100 of 2002 reported in (2007) 2
  sec 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
B 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
C 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.
D
       21. In that view of the matter, the selection of fifth         ,.   i
                                                                           ~




  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
E 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.

F   N.J.                                     Matters disposed of.