S m subramaniyam judge’s opinion that the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment as a Dealer because he is aged 72 years violates his right to equal opportunity. The decision should be reviewed, and the petitioner should be given a fair chance to seek justice.

    The judgment dismissing the writ petition on the grounds of old age is not justifiable. Age should not be a criterion for dismissing a petition that raises a legitimate issue. As long as the petitioner has a valid issue, their age should not bar them from seeking justice. The judge’s opinion is not only unfair but also discriminatory towards older people, who have an equal right to seek remedies for any grievances.

    In this case, the petitioner challenged the order rejecting their claim to be appointed as a Dealer for Retail Outlet of petroleum products. The order of disqualification had already been challenged by the petitioner in previous petitions, and the committee had considered and rejected their claim. However, the petition was not resolved, and it remained pending for the past 14 years.

    The judge’s opinion that the petitioner’s age makes it impossible for him to be considered for appointment as a Dealer at this length of time is misconceived. While the appointment of Dealers to run Retail Outlets should indeed be granted in accordance with the procedures, the petitioner still has the right to participate in the selection process if he meets the eligibility criteria. The judge’s opinion that the petitioner can no longer be considered for appointment is unjustified and violates his right to equal opportunity.

    The fact that the disqualification was already confirmed does not mean that the petitioner has no right to seek justice. The judge’s reasoning that the petitioner’s claim cannot be granted because of the efflux of time is unjustified. The age of the petitioner should not be a deciding factor in evaluating the merits of the claim.

    The judgment dismissing the writ petition based on the petitioner’s age is not acceptable. Age should not bar a petitioner from seeking justice if they have a valid issue. The judge’s opinion that the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment as a Dealer because he is aged 72 years violates his right to equal opportunity. The decision should be reviewed, and the petitioner should be given a fair chance to seek justice.

    2023:MHC:1199
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
    DATED : 20-03-2023
    CORAM
    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
    WP No.5402 of 2009
    And
    MP No.1 of 2009
    D.Dakshinamoorthy .. Petitioner
    vs.
    1.The Executive Director,
    Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
    Tamil Nadu State Office,
    Indian Oil Bhavan,
    No.139, N.H.Road, Chennai-600 034.
    2.Committee of Senior Officers,
    Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
    Tamil Nadu State Office,
    Indian Oil Bhavan,
    No.139, N.H.Road, Chennai-600 034.
    3.The Dealership Selection Committee,
    IBP Co. Ltd., (Now known as Indian Oil
    Corporation Ltd.,)
    No.10, Mayor V.Ramanathan Road,
    Chetpet,
    Chennai-600 031.
    4.The Divisional Manager,
    IBP Co. Ltd., (Now known as Indian Oil
    Corporation Ltd.,)
    No.10, Mayor V.Ramanathan Road,
    Chetpet,
    Chennai-600 031.
    5.K.Ramalingam .. Respondents
    Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in Ref No.TNLA/WP 48692/3 and quash the orders dated 15.12.2008 made therein and consequently direct the first respondent to award the dealership of rural retail outlet (GSK) SRMP No.144, Ananthapuram, Villupuram District to the petitioner.
    For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Sundar
    For Respondents-1 to 4 : Mr.R.Ravi
    For Respondent-5 : Ms.G.Sumithra
    O R D E R
    The order of rejection dated 15.12.2008 passed by the first
    respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner to appoint him as Dealer for
    Retail Outlet, is under challenge in the present writ petitioner
    2. The petitioner even at the time of filing of the present writ
    petition was aged about 58 years and the writ petition was filed in the year 2009 and is pending for the past about 14 years.
    3. The petitioner now is aged about 72 years. The petitioner
    challenges the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the first respondent rejecting his claim to appoint him as Dealer for Retail Outlet of petroleum products.
    4. It is pertinent to note that the order of disqualification was
    challenged by the petitioner in WP Nos.48692 and 48693 of 2006 and this Court passed final orders dismissing WP No.48693 of 2006 and disposing of WP No.48692 of 2006.
    5. The Committee constituted by the General Manager/Executive Director was directed to enquire into the matter and decide the issue on merits and as per law.
    6. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, again the Committee elaborately considered and rejected the claim of the writ petitioner through impugned proceedings on 15.12.2008.
    7. The impugned proceeding was issued in the year 2008 and the
    disqualification was upheld by Indian Oil Corporation and also by this
    Court. Now the petitioner seeks appointment as Dealer to run Retail Outlet of petroleum products.
    8. On account of efflux of time, such a relief of appointment to
    the petitioner, cannot be granted by this Court in writ proceedings.
    9. Appointment of Dealers to run Retail Outlets are to be granted
    in accordance with the procedures contemplated, which all are in force and the petitioner as of now is aged about 72 years. If at all, he is eligible as per the Rules prevailing, he is at liberty to participate in the process of selection, if any notified by Indian Oil Corporation.
    10. Appointment of Dealer to run Retail Outlet at this length of
    time cannot be considered and the fact that the disqualification was already confirmed, more-so, the petitioner is now aged about 72 years.
    11. With the abovesaid observations, the writ petition stands
    dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition also dismissed.
    20-03-2023 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
    Neutral Citation : Yes/No.
    Internet : Yes/No.
    Index: Yes/No. Svn 
    To
    1.The Executive Director,
    Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
    Tamil Nadu State Office,
    Indian Oil Bhavan,
    No.139, N.H.Road, Chennai-600 034.
    2.Committee of Senior Officers,
    Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
    Tamil Nadu State Office,
    Indian Oil Bhavan,
    No.139, N.H.Road, Chennai-600 034.
    3.The Dealership Selection Committee,
    IBP Co. Ltd., (Now known as Indian Oil
    Corporation Ltd.,)
    No.10, Mayor V.Ramanathan Road,
    Chetpet, Chennai-600 031.
    4.The Divisional Manager,
    IBP Co. Ltd., (Now known as Indian Oil
    Corporation Ltd.,)
    No.10, Mayor V.Ramanathan Road,
    Chetpet,
    Chennai-600 031.
    S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
    Svn
    WP 5402 of 2009
    20-03-2023

You may also like...