Tejinder Goyal vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that the respondents (HPCL) had arbitrarily and illegally failed to conclude the selection process initiated under the 2020 guidelines. The Court found that the reasons offered by HPCL for not issuing the Letter of Appointment (LOA) were unsustainable. The advertisement was issued under the guidelines in force on March 31, 2020. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoP&NG) letter dated August 5, 2021, did not direct OMCs to frame new guidelines or apply them retrospectively to ongoing selection processes. The Ministry's directive was to ensure fair selection and transparency, with interview weightage not exceeding 20% as per extant guidelines. The new guidelines framed by OMCs on May 6, 2022, did not stipulate retrospective application. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and others Etc. Versus M/s Tata Communications Ltd. etc., the Court emphasized that administrative/executive orders cannot be made retrospective without legislative competence. Therefore, the respondents were directed to proceed with the selection process in terms of the LOI issued to the petitioner, and upon completion of formalities, issue the Letter of Appointment within eight weeks.

Facts

The petitioner applied for the position of Service Provider for a Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) Corporation Owned and Corporation Operated (COCO) Retail Outlet in Nalagarh, District Solan, following an advertisement dated August 12, 2020. The petitioner was declared selected after interviews and received a Letter of Intent (LOI) on July 5, 2021. He completed all required formalities, including furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 70,00,000/- and obtaining a GST registration number. Despite these actions, HPCL informed the petitioner on February 22, 2021, that the selection process for COCO Service Providers, where LOI was issued but the Letter of Appointment (LOA) and agreement were not yet signed, would be put on hold. This decision led the petitioner to file the present writ petition seeking directions for the issuance of the Letter of Appointment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the declaration of selection and the issuance of a Letter of Intent (LOI) confer a right upon the petitioner to be appointed as a Service Provider for the COCO Retail Outlet, despite the respondents' decision to put the selection process on hold due to a change in policy guidelines? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the interpretation of the selection letter, LOI, and subsequent policy changes). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that having been declared successful, issued an LOI, and completed all stipulated formalities, the respondents were obligated to issue the Letter of Appointment. He argued that the respondents' decision to put the process on hold was arbitrary and illegal. Respondents' arguments: The respondents (HPCL) argued that the selection letter was merely a preliminary intimation and not an award of contract. They further contended that the LOI was only a proposed award and did not create a binding contract. They relied on the case of Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited Vs. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust & Others to argue that an LOI has no binding force. The respondents also submitted that due to a change in policy guidelines, they were permitted to cancel the LOI and re-advertise the location.