Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pushpa Vishal Ghuge, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging the selection of respondent No.2, Jayshri Ananta Jawale, for LPG distributorship at Shewali, district Jalna, by respondent No.1, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The petitioner sought cancellation of the order dated 26.12.2017 granting distributorship to respondent No.2 and a direction for fresh selection. The facts reveal that respondent No.1 issued an advertisement inviting applications for LPG distributorship for the OBC (Women) category at Shewali. The petitioner and respondent No.2 were among 38 applicants. The petitioner was found eligible and was informed on 18.12.2017 that selection would be by draw of lots. In the draw, respondent No.2 was selected. The petitioner contended that respondent No.2 did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, but the court noted that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to support this claim. The court held that mere eligibility does not confer a right to be selected, and the draw of lots is a valid method of selection when multiple candidates are eligible. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the selection of respondent No.2.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Selection Process - Eligibility vs. Right to Selection - Indian Oil Corporation's LPG Distributorship Guidelines - The petitioner challenged the selection of respondent No.2 by draw of lots, claiming she was eligible and should have been selected. The court held that mere eligibility does not confer a right to be selected, and the draw of lots is a valid method of selection when multiple candidates are eligible. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 2-5) B) Contract Law - Distributorship Agreement - No Right to Award - Indian Oil Corporation's LPG Distributorship Guidelines - The court held that the selection process for LPG distributorship is contractual and the petitioner has no vested right to be awarded the distributorship merely because she was eligible. The court refused to interfere with the selection made by draw of lots. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, being eligible, has a right to be selected for LPG distributorship and whether the selection by draw of lots is valid.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The selection of respondent No.2 by draw of lots is upheld.
Law Points
- Eligibility does not confer right to selection
- Draw of lots is valid selection method
- No right to be selected merely because eligible
- Writ petition not maintainable for contractual selection
