_**WP(C).20328.22**_
1
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1944**
## **WP(C) NO. 20328 OF 2022**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
SAFEER RAHMAN, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, THOLANTAKATH HOUSE, JANATA BAZZAR, NIRAMARUTHUR P.O AND VILLAGE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 109. BY ADVS. V.SETHUNATH V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA)
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, GOVT. OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN 110 001. 2 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, 3079/3, J B TITO MARG, SADIQ NAGAR, NEW DELHI , PIN 110 049. 3 THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., THE EX- OFFCIO STATE LEVEL COORDINATOR OF OIL COMPANIES, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN 682 036. 4 THE CHIEF DIVISIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, PMK TOWERS, KOZHIKODE , PIN 673 020.
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
ASGI S.MANU; SC FOR IOC M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
_**WP(C).20328.22**_
2
## **V.G.ARUN, J.**
**----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 20328 of 2022 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of July, 2022**
## **JUDGMENT**
The petitioner had submitted Exhibit P3 application on 24.12.2018, in response to Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for regular/rural retail outlet dealerships in Kerala under various categories. In Exhibit P3, petitioner had applied for retail outlet dealership at ‘Unniyal’ under ‘OBC’ category. The petitioner was not called upon to submit any supporting document along with the application. Later, by Exhibit P4 communication dated 25.10.2021, petitioner was informed that he has been selected for the retail outlet dealership at 'Unniyal'. Later, Exhibit P6 email was issued on 10.1.2022, requiring the petitioner to produce OBC category certificate issued by the competent authority, prior to, or, as on the date of submission of application. According to the petitioner, although he was in possession of OBC certificate issued prior to 24.11.2018, that certificate was subsequently lost/misplaced. The petitioner therefore produced Exhibit P7 certificate dated 26.10.2021 and Exhibit P8 OBC-Non creamy layer certificate dated 09.02.2022. By Exhibit P9 communication dated 31.1.2022, the
_**WP(C).20328.22**_
3
fourth respondent reiterated the direction for submitting petitioner's OBC certificate, prior to or as on the date of application. Thereupon, the petitioner sent Exhibit P10 reply, appending OBC certificate dated 27.6.2015 issued by the Village Officer. As the fourth respondent insisted on production of OBC certificate of the year 2018 itself, Exhibit P12 newspaper advertisement was taken out, announcing loss of petitioner's certificate and Exhibit P11 complaint filed at the Tanur Police Station. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also approached this Court in W.P(C).No.4607 of 2022. That writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P13 judgment, directing the respondents to consider petitioner’s claim, if he is able to produce documents in substantiation. Accordingly the petitioner’s claim was considered by the fourth respondent and rejected under Exhibit P14 order. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed.
2. Adv.V.Sethunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the obstinate stand taken in Exhibit P14 is liable to be interfered with, primarily for the reason that the petitioner was asked to produce the OBC category certificate after almost three years of submission of the application. The certificate was lost from the petitioner’s possession during the interregnum. Therefore, petitioner had produced Exhibit P7 certificate of the year 2021. It is contended that the OBC status of a person will
_**WP(C).20328.22**_
4
not change over the years and even otherwise, Exhibit P21 is valid from a prior of three years prior to its issuance. Being a certificate issued in the year 2021, Exhibit P7 is sufficient to prove the petitioner’s community status as on the date of submission of the application. Moreover, the petitioner had also produced Exhibit P8 non creamy layer certificate. Reliance is placed on the decisions in _Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board_ [(2016) 4 SCC 754] and _Manoj Kumar Prasad, of the High Court of Bombay_ [2021 SCC Online Bom. 3949] to contend that a pragmatic, and not pedantic, approach should be taken in the matter of production of community and non-creamy layer certificates.
3. Replying to the contentions, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 submitted that Exhibit P14 was issued after considering the petitioner’s claim in detail. There being no fundamental error in Exhibit P14, no interference in exercise of the power of judicial review is warranted. Attention is drawn to Clause 4(vi) of Exhibit P2 Brochure, as per which the applicant should have been in possession of all requisite documents, as on the date of submission of the application. It is submitted that in Exhibit P1 application itself, the petitioner had specifically undertaken/confirmed that ‘the eligibility certificate(s) for the category applied as above is/are available with him and will be submitted as and when advised by the Indian Oil Corporation’. It is also affirmed and acknowledged that the petitioner is in
_**WP(C).20328.22**_
5
possession of the supporting documents in original, in respect of the information given by him in the application, and if selected, his failure to present the documents in original will result in cancellation of selection due to submission of false/unsupported information in the application. It is contended that in view of the specific clause in the brochure and undertaking in the application, the petitioner is estopped from contending that he is not bound to produce the OBC certificate pertaining to the relevant period. Exhibit P9 certificate of the year 2015 produced subsequently, was issued by the Village Officer, who is not the competent authority as far as Central Government and Public Sector Undertakings are concerned. Exhibits P7 and P8 certificates dated 26.10.2021 and 9.02.2022 were issued much after the submission of Exhibit P1 application. The averment that the OBC certificate of the relevant period was lost from the petitioner’s possession, even if accepted, his failure to submit police complaint at the relevant time and to produce at least a copy of that certificate, justifies rejection of his application.
4. The legal position that an applicant is bound by the terms fixed by the employer and intimated in advance needs no elaboration. While submitting the application, petitioner had affirmed that he is in possession of all necessary documents and had undertaken to produce the documents, as and when required. As rightly submitted by the Standing Counsel, if the petitioner had actually lost/misplaced the certificate, he should have lodged a
_**WP(C).20328.22**_
6
complaint immediately. The terms for grant of licence to applicants belonging to OBC category being specific, the respondents cannot be compelled to accept a certificate of the year 2021, by inferring it to be valid for the period when the application was submitted.
For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is dismissed.
**Sd/-**
**V.G.ARUN, JUDGE**
## _vgs_
_**WP(C).20328.22**_
7
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20328/2022**
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
- Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 24.11.2018 ALONG WITH RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SERIAL NUMBER OF RETAIL OUTLET.
- Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF UNIFIED GUIDELINES FOR THE THREE OIL COMPANIES.
- Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ITEM NO. 732 IN THE PLACE 'UNNIYAL DATED 24.12.2018.
- Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 25.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
- Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND COMMUNICATION DATED 25.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
- Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2022.
- Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.B.C CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE THAHASILDAR, TIRUR DATED 26.10.2021.
- Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.B.C CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE THAHASILDAR, TIRUR DATED 9.2.2022.
- Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 31.01.2022.
- Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE O.B.C. CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, IN THE YEAR 2015.
- Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE TANUR POLICE STATION DATED 18.02.2022.
_**WP(C).20328.22**_
8
Exhibit P12
TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 18.02.2022.
|Exhibit P13|THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS|
|---|---|
||COURT IN W.P.C NO. 4607/2022 DATED|
||17.2.2022.|
|Exhibit P14|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE|
||4TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.4.2022.|
|Exhibit P15|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE|
||4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2019.|
|Exhibit P16|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE|
||4TH RESPONDENT DATED 02.03.2020.|
|Exhibit P17|THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM|
||NO. 36012/22/93 ESTT (SCT) DATED|
||08.09.1993.|
|Exhibit P18|THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM|
||NO. 36033/5/2004 ESTT (SCT) DATED|
||14.10.2004.|
|Exhibit P19|THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM|
||NO. 36033/3/2004 ESTT (SCT) DATED|
||14.10.2008.|
|Exhibit P20|THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F|
||NO. 36036/2/2013 ESTT (RES I) DATED|
||31.03.2016.|
|Exhibit P21|THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM|
||NO. 36033/1/2013 ESTT (RES-I) DATED|
||13.09.2017.|
