HINA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 1676 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 23, 2016

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2016
              [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 37555 OF 2012]

HINA                                                          Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                        Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
1.    Leave granted.

2.    The short question which arises in this appeal is whether  the  second
respondent-Corporation was justified in rejecting  the  application  of  the
appellant for allotment of retail outlet of petroleum/diesel  dealership  at
location Kalamnuri in District Hingoli in the State of Maharashtra,  on  the
ground that the age proof submitted by her was not of the  Secondary  School
as per the norms, but of a Higher Secondary School.

3.    It is not in dispute that the  appellant  had  submitted  an  attested
copy of the School Leaving Certificate issued by Shri  Shanti  Vidya  Mandir
Higher Secondary School,  Shiradshahpur,  Hingoli,  which  is  of  a  Higher
Secondary School.  That certificate was  issued  by  the  Principal  of  the
school and the appellant had produced an attested copy of the same.

4.    The High Court, in the impugned Judgment, held as under :-
"We find that though the approach of the Corporation seems to be  technical,
however, the petitioner could have submitted proof of  age  as  required  by
the  Corporation  and  in  accordance  with  the  clauses  set  out  in  the
advertisement.  It  would  not  be  proper  to  direct  the  Corporation  to
add/amend or alter the conditions of advertisement."

5.    The application was rejected, as already noted,  on  the  ground  that
the appellant had not complied with the requirement in terms of Clause  2(c)
of Eligibility Criteria.  Clause 2(c) reads as under :-
"(c)  Age - As on date of Application (In completed years) : not  less  than
21 years.  Enclose an attested copy of  either  Matriculation  or  Secondary
School Leaving Certificate indicating date of birth or identity card  issued
by election commission or PAN card or Passport or an affidavit as  proof  of
age."

6.    The learned counsel for the Corporation contends that the  requirement
being  attested  copy  of  Secondary   School   Leaving   Certificate,   the
Corporation was justified in rejecting the application since what  had  been
produced before them was an attested copy of  the  Higher  Secondary  School
Leaving Certificate.  It is also submitted that in  all  those  cases  where
the applicants had not strictly complied with the  requirement  as  per  the
Eligibility Criteria  notified  by  the  Corporation,  the  Corporation  has
rejected those applications.  Whether the  dispute  pertained  to  the  same
issue as raised by the appellant herein is not clear.

7.    It is seen from the Eligibility Criteria, as extracted above, even  an
Affidavit was sufficient as proof of age.  Be that as it may, in  case,  the
copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate meets  the  requirement  of
the Eligibility Criteria, we fail to understand as to how  does  it  make  a
difference  in  case  the  School  Leaving  Certificate  is  of  the  Higher
Secondary School.  The learned counsel for the Corporation was at  pains  to
explain before us that the Secondary School Leaving Ceritificate  is  issued
by the Board whereas the School Leaving Certificate of the Higher  Secondary
School is issued by the School.  School Leaving  Certificate,  as  the  very
expression indicates, is issued by the School since  the  pupil  leaves  the
school.  Annexure P1,  which  was  produced  by  the  appellant  before  the
Corporation is captioned as "School Leave Certificate".  The requirement  of
the Corporation is only a  proof  regarding  the  age.   No  doubt,  certain
documents are specified in the Eligibility Criteria which would be  accepted
by the Corporation as proof of age.   In  case,  a  copy  of  the  Secondary
School Leaving Certificate can be accepted as proof  of  age,  it  does  not
even strike to common sense as to why  the  copy  of  the  Higher  Secondary
School Leaving Certiciate, duly attested, cannot be  accepted  as  proof  of
age.  The High  Court,  however,  is  not  correct  in  its  approach.   The
clarification we have made does not in any way amend the criteria.

8.    Mr. S. M. Jadhav, learned counsel  appearing  for  Respondent  No.  4,
apart from supporting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for  the
Corporation, also submits that during the pendency of the writ  petition  in
the High Court, the 4th Respondent had already  been  allotted  the  outlet.
Obviously, that will be subject to the selection  to  be  conducted  by  the
Corporation after allowing the participation  of  the  appellant  herein  as
well.

9.    Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the  Judgment  passed  by
the High Court and direct the second respondent-Corporation to  conduct  the
selection afresh, allowing the participation  of  the  appellant  herein  as
well  along  with  those  who  have  been  considered  as  eligible  by  the
Corporation.  The needful shall be done within a period of two  months  from
today.
      No costs.
                                                   .......................J.
                                                         [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                 [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]

      New Delhi;
      February 23, 2016.