WRIT JURISDICTION IN CONTRACTUAL MATTERS

Case Name: THE GENERAL MANAGER BUSINESS NETWORK PLANNING (RETAIL) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. vs. P. SOUNDARYA 

Case Number: CA@ SLP(C) No. 7845 of 2024

Date: 2 April, 2025

Quorum: JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE MANMOHAN 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

A retail outlet dealership search advertisement appeared from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) to engage prospects as dealers. This dealership had specifically been designated for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. Candidates needed to provide their applications through either Group 1 or Group 2 depending on their ownership status of suitable land for the dealership.

The application for retail outlet dealership was submitted by P. Soundarya to the Group 2 category. After initially applying under Group 2 terms she changed her position to ask for assessment under Group 1 rules since her land met all requirements. The evaluation process conducted by BPCL judged all applications by the category each candidate had chosen even though they found Soundarya’s application unsuitable for Group 2. The applicant made multiple representation requests to BPCL but the company did not take action on them. Soundarya submitted multiple writ petitions at the High Court that demanded BPCL to reevaluate her application under Group 1. The High Court supported her position and ordered BPCL to assess her candidate pool according to Group 1 rather than Group 2. BPCL argued in front of the Supreme Court that applicants lost the ability to modify their application category after presenting complete and specific requirements.

 

ISSUE

Whether the High Court’s direction to consider the application of the respondent as Group 1 was justified in law?

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

The Constitution of India 

1. Article 14 (Right to Equality)
2. Article 15(4) & 15(5)
3. Article 19(1)(g)
4. Article 226

 

ARGUMENTS

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:

1. The Respondent (P. Soundarya) received an invalid dealership assignment at the retail outlet because she failed to conform to essential provisions concerning eligibility.
2. The decision against allotting a dealership followed established guidelines which control dealership distribution.
3. The administrative authorities meticulously processed the applicant’s selection and all procedures were properly executed. Thus the decision followed the prescribed framework. 
4. The proper implementation of merit selection and eligibility assessment criteria represents an essential requirement for fair selection practices because any deviation from established guidelines would be unlawful. 
5. The correct filling of the form belonged to the respondent. The application selection process depended entirely on information provided within the form due to a warning indication provided. 

 

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

1. If the selection process established correctly that she satisfied each requirement and followed proper procedures then the decision made to set it aside was unfair. 
2. BPCL did not provide good reasons for denying her selection position after following a proper selection process. The selection rejection showed an act of unfair treatment towards natural justice and fair behavior.
3. The High Court delivered support to the respondent with a favorable judgment because it acknowledged the unjust actions she received. 

 

ANALYSIS

According to the judgment, administrators must maintain procedural compliance and protect fair procedures but the court requires a visible breach of constitutional or legal foundations to intervene. The Supreme Court supports implementation of rational governance systems within public sector organizations and opposes judicial decisions made through improper compassion. The core aspect of this judgment features strong support for the rule of law system since it demonstrates how procedures followed the established rules and documentation needs. The permission to make this group change would create risks that damage public sector recruitment transparency and could spawn disorder in the recruitment process. The Court properly outlined court authority by specifying intervention must occur only when there is proof of arbitrariness along with discriminatory practice or fundamental rights violations instead of granting relief through sympathetic reasoning. A proper distinction enables the judiciary to preserve its independence from administrative authorities in terms of constitutional powers.

The court disapproves of unnecessary legal proceedings because the respondent filed repeated writ petitions even though eligibility standards were obvious which wasted time and public money in court cases. Through this decision the Supreme Court warns against individuals who try to avoid established rules through repeated legal petitions. Legal validity present in the judgment warrants consideration of administrative process flexibility issues which may affect marginalized community members. The applicant owned eligible property yet made a wrong classification in their application.The state-owned BPCL could have chosen to address small mistakes instead of denying the application absolutely. The situation reveals opposite pressure between legal procedure compliance and affirmative action goals since refusing qualified SC candidates through rules could potentially diminish their underlying social and economic advancement mandate. Applicants need to have mechanisms including clarification windows to prevent these problems from occurring.

 

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court condemned the High Court for ordering BPCL to assess the applicant under Group 1 instead of following Group 2 procedures. The assurance came from BPCL since it operates as a Public Sector Undertaking that manages petroleum and gasoline resources under public trust by giving thorough specifications for applications within its detailed advertisement. All applications were evaluated solely through the submitted information and documents according to the advertisement published clearly. According to the Supreme Court the High Court made an incorrect decision by instructing BPCL to reclassify the respondent’s category because this action would compromise the entire selection process. The Court allowed the appeal to nullify the decision from the High Court. BPCL received orders to execute the dealership distribution through its current established guidelines.

 

CONCLUSION

Through this ruling the Supreme Court effectively confirmed that administrative integrity combined with procedural rules along with judicial restraint will preserve the rule of law. The judicial system appropriately stops organizers from changing selection procedures to favor emotional biases in place of rules-based decisions. The case reveals significant issues in public sector governance because it demonstrates the need for suitable mechanisms to handle social sensitivity cases together with procedural requirements. Public sector organizations such as BPCL should create post-litigation grievance systems to remedy classification mistakes thus safeguarding qualified candidates from unfair denial of opportunities.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

WRITTEN BY RIMPLEPREET KAUR