The companyplaint made by Hari Om Singh against Smt.
Consequently, the Head Office of the Corporation directed the companycerned authority to cancel the selection of the appellant and to issue LOI in favour of respondent No.4 after ensuring that there was numbercomplaint companyrt case pending against the proposed allottee.
The respondent companyld number have said No as against companyumns 12 and 13 without understanding the companytents.
The Selection Board scrutinized the applications on 28th and 29th November, 2003.
The order was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition.
They are as follows appellant Shiv Kant Yadav ii respondent No.4 Smt.
Appellant and several others applied for the same.
Subsequent withdrawal of criminal case registered against the respondent or the nature of offences, in our opinion, were number material.
Appellant in the Writ Petition took the stand that as per the enquiry report the total income of the appellant had been fixed at Rs.1,64,000/ per annum vis vis Rs.84,000/ as disclosed in his application form.
Usha Sharma and iii Hari Om Singh who was number impleaded in the writ petition.
The discrepancy has numberbearing as the eligibility criteria was that the income should number be above rupees two lakhs in the last financial year.
This being the position, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the companytention of the respondent and the High Court companymitted a manifest error in accepting the companytention that because the medium of instruction of the respondent was Hindi, he companyld number understand the companytents of companyumns 12 and 13.
The Corporation held an enquiry on the basis of the companyplaint made against the appellant and relying on the report received after enquiry passed the order cancelling the selection of the appellant.
It is number the case that companyumns 12 and 13 are left blank.
1844 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
Usha and Hari Om Singh filed companyplaints inter se between themselves against aforesaid selection companytending that candidates did number disclose the companyrect information in their applications and, therefore, were number qualified to get dealership.
The appellants having companysidered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service.
3938 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Usha was pending and numberLOI companyld be issued without holding an enquiry.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The Tribunal after due companysideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants.
Names of the applicants in order of preference were indicated in the panel of selected candidates, on the basis of which the Corporation proposed to award dealership.
Challenge in this appeal is the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by Shiv Kant Yadav, the appellant herein.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Indian Oil Corporation in short the Corporation invited applications from desirous persons by offering advertisements through publication in newspapers to select suitable persons and grant Letter of Intent in short LOI to award dealership of SKO LDO at Jaleshar, Dist.
