CASE LAWS

I. CASE: B.R. Chowdhury vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. ( Civil
Appeal No. 472 of 1998)

Judges: Shivaraj V. Patil and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ

Issue: Retail outlet dealership--Cancellation--Whether justified?—

Case Brief:

Held, "yes"--Preference to be given to unemployed youth in giving dealership--In application

against column 'whether temporarily employed', appellant writing "No"--In another column
for present occupation writing "Nil"--But evidence showing that appellant was employee of
one company on relevant date--Mere use of word "trainee" cannot be taken to say that he
was not employee particularly when his services were confirmed later--Hence, statements
made by appellant in application amount to suppression of material fact--In view of para 10
of affidavit filed by appellant coupled with para 56 of Memorandum of Agreement--
Corporation well within its rights to terminate dealership of appellant--No substance in
contention that order terminating dealership passed mechanically and without application of
mind.

“1. Indian Oil Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') invited applications for appointment
of a dealer relating to a retail outlet, on 22nd June, 1987. It was open to all but preference was
to be given to the unemployed youth. The appellant was given the dealership as an
unemployed youth. The appellant was engaged as a Trainee. Professional Sales
Representative with M/s. Denis Chem Lab Limited from 23.2.1987 to 3.4.1989. He wrote
'NIL' against the relevant column relating to employment. The respondent No. 5 who had also
applied for dealership filed objections before the Oil Selection Board stating that the
appellant was an employee and as such he was not entitled to the benefit of preferential
treatment. The Oil Selection Board prepared a panel of three candidates consisting of the
appellant, respondent No. 5 and one another placing the appellant at Sr. No. 1 and the
respondent No. 5 at Sr. No. 2.”
3. “ Following the said order, the Corporation considered the matter afresh and passed the
order dated 11.10.1996 cancelling the dealership given to the appellant.”

“A learned Single Judge, by the order dated 10.2.1997 after considering the rival contentions,
concluded that the panel prepared by the Oil Selection Board was no more valid and in the
result while upholding the cancellation of the dealership of the appellant, set aside the
dealership given to the respondent No. 5. Further the Corporation was directed to take
appropriate action in the matter as permissible in law.”

11. “the Corporation was well within its right to terminate the dealership of the appellant.
There is no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the
Corporation passed the order of termination of the dealership of the appellant mechanically
and without application of mind. On the facts found and in view of the findings recorded by
Mr. Gupta, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Corporation terminating the
dealership of the appellant was mechanical or without application of mind.”

II. Seema Upadhya v. UOI and Ors. (2018)5 SCC 325

Judges: Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J

Issue: Cancellation of dealership

DY Chandrachud:
(although this was a PIL which was dismissed at the end but these were the
contentions taken into consideration by the judge)

a) As a constant drive, the PSU OMCs undertake regular and surprise inspection
of Retail Outlets and take action under the provisions of the Marketing Discipline
Guidelines (MDG) and Dealership Agreements against the outlets found indulging
in irregularities/malpractices like adulteration, short delivery etc. Further, the
MDG provides for termination of outlet in the first instance itself for serious
malpractices like adulteration, tampering of seats and unauthorized fittings/gears
in the dispensing units and graded penalties for other malpractices/irregularities.
 b) The Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution
and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 issued by the Central Government
under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 provides for punitive action against
malpractices such as adulteration. Provisions are also available in the contractual
documents and administrative guidelines to prevent malpractices in the trade of
petroleum products.

c) A Quality Control Cell is also functional in each of the Public Sector OMCs
which carries out surprise inspections at Ros for checking various irregularities
including adulteration. It may be appreciation that during the last three years and
current year (upto June 2016), OMCs have carried out 5,61,796 number of
inspections at their Ros across the country.

III. Mukul Kumar Tyagi and Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 4
SCC 86

Judges : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ

CASE BRIEF: According to a notification/ advertisement a particular

Computer Course was required to become a grade officer but when the fist
list came grade out candidates with only government approved degree
were included. The division bench said that this was against the idea of
justice hence a new list including the other candidates must be made the
Single Judge bench held to the contrary stating that it was obvious from
the advertisement that a government approved certificate is required
because other certificates are not considered valid. Hence the original list
to be in place. SC upheld the Single Judge bench judgement.

ISSUE: Whether self decared certificates are applicable according to the

notification.
16. “Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC
150, candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware
that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in
computer operations. The Appellants had appeared in the selection process
and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection
process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible.”
.

“67. The Division Bench opined that self-certification by the candidates

for the qualification was sufficient to uphold the earlier action of the
recruitment agency in which candidates were included without scrutiny of
equivalent certificate. The direction of the learned Single Judge was in
accordance with law and has done substantial justice, which did not
deserve to be set aside by the Division Bench. We may further notice that
after the exercise undertaken by the Commission for redetermining the
select list, large number of candidates, whose certificates were not found
equivalent to CCC certificates were deleted from the select list. Some of
the candidates whose names were deleted from the select list due to their
qualification having not found equivalent had filed the writ petitions in the
High Court. One Writ Petition of Rohit (Writ Petition No. 13216 of 2018 -
Rohit v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.), whose name was deleted on 13.05.2018
has been referred to and relied by the Appellants. A special appeal was
also filed by Rohit against the dismissal of the writ petition where Division
Bench upheld the judgment of learned Single Judge holding that writ
Petitioner of that petition having not possessed CCC certificate was rightly
excluded from the select list.

68. Thus, the deletion of names of certain candidates from the select list
was upheld by an earlier Division Bench of the High Court. The Division
Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment without adverting to
cases of those whose deletion of names were upheld by the earlier Division
Bench of the High Court had restored the select list, which was in
 existence on 14.07.2015. For the above reasons, the judgment of the
Division Bench cannot be sustained.

79. In view of the foregoing discussions, we allow all the appeals and set
aside the judgment of the Division Bench dated 09.05.2019 and restore the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017. Parties shall bear
their own costs.”

IV. Narendra Kumar Maheshwari vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 1990 Supp
SCC 440

JUDGES: S. Ranganathan and Sabyasachi Mukherjee

ISSUE: Whether conditions in brochures have an enforceable value?

“99Also the observations in British Oxygen Co. v. Board of Trade 1971 AC 610.the
Court held that a circular or self made rule can become enforceable of the application
of persons if it was shown that it had created legitimate expectation in their minds that
the authority would abide by such a policy/guideline. However, the doctrine of
legitimate expectation applies only when a person had been given reason to believe
that the State will abide by the certain policy or guideline on the basis of which such
applicant might have been led to take certain actions. This doctrine is akin to the
doctrine of promissory estoppel. See also the observations of Lord Wilberforce in IRC
v. National Federation 1982 AC 617. However, it has to be borne in mind that the
guidelines on which the petitioners have relied are not statutory in character. These
guidelines are not judicially enforceable. The competent authority might depart from
these guidelines where the proper exercise of his discretion so warrants. In the present
case, the statute provided that rules can be made by the Central Government only.
Furthermore, according to Section 6(2) of the Act, the competent authority has the
power and jurisdiction to condone any deviation from even the statutory requirements
prescribed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.”

V. Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh& Ors(1996) 10 SCC 166
Judge : K.Ramaswamy

Issue: Validity of a notification creating pay changes.

“Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we
think that the case of the appellants is founded on a sounder footing than
that of the respondents. It is true that the respondents were drawing higher
pay-scale than that of the appellants at the initial stage. But, later, when the
statutory rules came to be made, there was a jump in the scale of pay of the
appellants from Rs.160-400/- to Rs.225-500/- while the scale of pay of the
respondents remained stagnant at Rs.160-400/-. Even in the subsequent
revision in the ministerial cadre, the appellants' scale of pay was higher
than that of the respondents They were treated two separate entities as
indicated earlier When the statutory rules came to be made increasing their
scale of pay and making them eligible for promotion directly to the post of
gazetted cadre class II from Assistants, Head Accountants, Stenographers
etc. to a pay-scale of Rs 500-900/-, it would be obvious that the executive
instructions issued earlier had to yield place to the statutory rules made
under proviso to Article 309 It is equally true that in the subsequent rules
made on June 13, 1978 under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
fusing Accountants and Head Clerks as eligible for promotion to the post
of Superintendent, it would be obvious that in view of the fact that higher
scale of pay was given to the Assistants, Head Clerks in the scale of pay of
Rs 620-1200/- which that of the respondents remained to be Rs 570-
1080/-, by necessary implication they cannot be treated to be of the same
class for the purpose of enabling them to seek promotion to the post of
Gazetted Class II Moreover, the statutory rules do not include Accountants
as a feeder post for promotion as Gazetted Class II Considered from these
perspectives, we are of the view that the Tribunal was in clear error in
directing the Government to consider Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as senior to
the appellants and in giving promotion over the appellants.”