HINAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                       (2016] I S.C.R. 1115



                              HINA                                   A
                                v.
                   UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal NO. 1676 OF 2016)
                      FEBRUARY 23, 2016                              B

          [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINDTON FALi
                          NARIMAN JJ.]
       Public Distribution - Allotment of outlet of petroleum/diesel
dealership - Rejected on the ground that the age proof provided by
the applicant was not of the Senior Secondary School as per the
                                                                      c
norms, but of Higher Secondary school - Propriety of - Held: Since
the requirement of age proof is fulfilled, rejection of allotment is
not justified - Respondent-Corporation is directed to conduct the
selection afresh.
       Allowing the appeal, the Court                                 D
       HELD: 1. 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 E
 does not even strike to common sense as to why the copy of the
Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate, duly attested,
 cannot be accepted as proof of age. The respondent-Corporation
 is directed to conduct the selection afresh, allowing the
 participation of the appellant as well along with those who have
                                                                      F
 been considered as eligible by the Corporation. [Paras 7 and
 9](1117-D-E; 1118-G]
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1676
 OF2016
        From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2012 in Writ Petition
 No. 9081 of2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay G
  Bench at Aurangabad
        Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar for the Appellants.
        S.M. Jadhav, Anshuman, (for Mis. S.M. Jadhav & Company),
  Priya Puri, Ranjay Kumar Dubey, Vikas Bansal, Chandra Bhushan
                                                                       H
                                1115
1116                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2016] 1 S.C.R.


 A     Prasad, Meenesh Kumar Dubey, Kaushal Yadav, B. Krishna Prasad for
       the Respondents.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted .
             .2. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the
 B     second respondent-Corporation was justified in rejecting the application
       ofthe appellant for allotment ofretail 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
 c     copy of the School Leaving Certificate issued by Shri Shanti Vidya Mandir
       Higher Secondary School, Shiradshahpur, Hingoli, which is ofa 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:-
 D             '"We find that though the approach of the Corporation seems
              to be technical, however, the petitioner could have submiued
              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
 E            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
 F
              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
 G     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 ofthe 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
 H
        HINA v. UNION Of INDIA & ORS. [KURIAN, J.]                             1117



has rejected those applications. Whether the dispute pertained to the same     A
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
                                                                               B
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         c
since the pupil leaves the school. Annexure Pl, which was produced by
the appellant before the Corporation is captioned as "School Leave
Certificate". The requirement of the Corporation is only a proofregarding
the age. No doubt, certain documents are specified in the Eligibility
Criteria which would be accepted by the Corporation as proof of age.
                                                                               D
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.                                                 E
       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
                                                                               f
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        G
the Corporation. The needful shall be done within a period of two months
from today.
       No costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy                                          Appeal allowed.
                                                                               H