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.