Authority Issuing Advertisement Inviting Applications From General Public Is Bound By The Representation Made: SC
|The Supreme Court held that an advertisement inviting applications from the general public constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation.
The appellant had applied for the selection process for LPG distributorships reserved for the Scheduled Caste community as advertised jointly by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Despite emerging successful in the draw of lots, the appellant’s proposed showroom had failed to meet the eligibility criteria as per clause 8 A(n) of the Brochure for Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorships (Unified Guidelines) as it was beyond the advertised location.
The Court had to determine whether the land offered by the appellant for the showroom was covered by the extent of location stipulated in the advertisement and was compliant with the Unified Guidelines or not.
Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “HPCL having advertised Haripal as the location within Haripal block for the LPG distributorship and without there being anything more in the Advertisement with specifics as to the ‘locality’, the candidature of the appellant and the land offered by him for the showroom had to be considered bearing in mind the relevant clauses of the Unified Guidelines.”
Advocate Sudipta Kumar Bose represented the appellant, while AOR Parijat Sinha appeared for the respondents.
The appellant challenged the cancellation letter through a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court set aside the cancellation letter and directed HPCL to proceed with the evaluation of the appellant’s candidature. On appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, the Court held that the appellant had failed to fulfil the eligibility criteria for the LPG distributorship.
The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the HPCL did not intend for a distributor to cater to any rural area but a ‘Rurban’ area which comprised both rural and urban areas.
“The contention of HPCL that Haripal as shown both under the columns ‘Block’ and ‘Location’ are not synonymous and that Haripal should be read and understood as Haripal village appears to be one advanced in desperation,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court held that “when an advertisement is made inviting applications from the general public for appointment to a post or for admission to any course or appointment of the present nature, the advertisement constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 225)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR P. S. Sudheer; Advocates Sudipta Kumar Bose, Bharat Sood, Rishi Maheshwari, Anne Mathew and Miranda Solaman
Respondents: AOR Parijat Sinha and Zoheb Hossain; Advocates Divyam Dhyani, Reshmi Rea Sinha and Pallak Bhagat