In the recent ruling, the High Court of Calcutta quashed the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.’s selection process for retail outlet dealerships due to alleged unpaid municipal taxes, finding the appellant’s disqualification lacked sufficient evidence and clear criteria, thus making the process unfair.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. appellant-assessee invited applications for retail outlet dealerships on November 18, 2006, including in Shaktigarh, Khidderpore, and Budge Budge. The respondent- petitioner applied and was shortlisted for interviews. After the interviews, they were ranked second for Shaktigarh.
However, since the top two candidates had a small difference in marks, the merit list was paused. A second round of interviews was held, and the petitioner again ranked second in the final list on August 7, 2007.
Boost Your Business with SME IPO Funding Strategies – Enroll Now
Despite the petitioner ranking second for Shaktigarh, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. disqualified the top candidate, citing their allocation to a different location. Instead of considering the petitioner, the appellant gave the dealership to the third-ranked candidate. The petitioner raised objections, which the appellant addressed only in December 2007.
For Khidderpore, the selection process was delayed due to a small marks difference among candidates. After several interviews in 2008, the petitioner was excluded because of allegations of not disclosing unpaid municipal taxes. The appellant claimed the petitioner had not revealed outstanding taxes to the Howrah Municipal Corporation, which they said disqualified the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the taxes were only due after the application was submitted.
The writ petitioner challenged their disqualification by filing a petition. On December 19, 2018, the Single Judge ruled that the appellant should reconsider the petitioner’s candidature and re-evaluate the selection process. The appellant, along with the selected candidates for Shaktigarh and Khidderpore, appealed this decision to the Division Bench.
The Division Bench comprising Debangsu Basak (Justice) and Md.Shabbar Rashidi(Justice) reviewed the appeal, including the appellant’s claim that the disqualification followed the eligibility criteria and that accepting the petitioner would harm the process’s transparency. The selected candidates argued that the Single Judge had ignored the merit-based rankings.
Boost Your Business with SME IPO Funding Strategies – Enroll Now
After reviewing the case, the court found the appellant’s reasons for disqualification lacked proper evidence and clear criteria, making the process seem unfair. It also stressed that the selection process had to be transparent and based on solid grounds.
As a result, the bench dismissed the appeals and upheld the Single Judge’s decision to reconsider the petitioner’s candidature.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
