Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUSHILA DEVI versus UNION OF INDIA THRU' SECY. MIN. OF PETROLEUM & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sushila Devi v. Union Of India Thru' Secy. Min. Of Petroleum & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 29743 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 8100 (20 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 1

Writ Petition No.       29743 of   2004

Smt. Sushila Devi ... Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others ... Respondents

HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J.

HON'BLE RK RASTOGI, J.

1. An advertisement was published by the Indian Oil Corporation (the Corporation) on 17.1.2004 for allotment of retail outlet dealership. This was reserved for scheduled caste  (woman) category. The petitioner as well as many others applied for the same. Interview was held on 13.7.2004.  The result was also declared on the same date. The panel contained the name of respondent no. 7 only, hence the present writ petition.

2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prakash Padia for the Corporation and Sri Rohit Pandey for respondent no.7.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that only one name was declared in the panel and as such it is illegal. The Corporation has filed counter affidavit in which it is mentioned that eligible person should have secured 60% marks and as only respondent no. 7 had secured 60 % marks, her name was declared. The counsel for the petitioner  produced the guidelines to show that in the case of reserved category, the eligibility  is at 50 % only of the total marks and  not  60%.  These guidelines are dated 11th November 2004 and the result was declared prior to that date. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation. There is no merit in this point.

4. The Corporation has also produced original marksheet before this court. It was  shown to the counsel for the petitioner also. It indicates that out of total 195 marks  (65 marks each  by the three experts) the petitioner secured only 97 marks and respondent no. 7 secured 119 marks. The marks secured by respondent no. 7 are much higher than the petitioner. Nothing has been pointed out to show that there is any mistake in awarding the marks. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.

Date: 20.4.2006

BBL


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.