# 1 S.C.R. 1126 RITU MAHAJAN v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS

- **Citation:** [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1126
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-02-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 804 of 2009
- **Bench:** S.B. Sinha, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1-s-c-r-1126-ritu-mahajan-v-indian-oil-corporation-ors-25377
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

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; 1134D-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

## Text

A
B
(2009) 1 S.C.R. 1126
RITU MAHAJAN
V.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 804 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 9, 2009
[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; 1134D-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.
F
Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 673,
referred to.
Case Law Reference:
(2003) 2 sec 673
(2001) 2 sec 536
Referred to.
Para 14
Held applicable.
Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 804
G of 2009.
H
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.
;
·-
l
RITU MAHAJAN v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS. 1129
WITH
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.
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.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted.
A
B
c
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.
9. Mr. Yashraj Singh Oeora, learned counsel appearing for
A
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 inB 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 P0
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 AssessAbility
& 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
F
not have been relevant and material criteria. On that score we
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
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.
i
,.
~