Retail outlet dealer selection must follow the governing policy circular, but Article 136 relief may yield to equity and public interest.

Selection of a retail outlet dealer was governed by the policy circular in force on the interview date, so later brochure requirements could not apply retrospectively. The material showed no reliable proof that the supplementary lease deed or comparable land-capability documents were properly before the selection committee, and marks awarded on that basis were therefore inconsistent with the applicable criteria. The text also notes that, despite this irregularity, the Court declined to interfere under Article 136 because the dealership had been operating for years, substantial investment had been made, and wider public-interest and equitable considerations favoured preserving the final relief granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the selection of the retail outlet dealer was vitiated for non-observance of the applicable policy circular and for awarding marks on the basis of land-capability materials that were not properly before the selection committee; (ii) whether interference was warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in view of the subsequent events, the functioning dealership, and the public interest involved.

Issue (i): Whether the selection of the retail outlet dealer was vitiated for non-observance of the applicable policy circular and for awarding marks on the basis of land-capability materials that were not properly before the selection committee.

Analysis: The selection was governed by the policy circular in force on the date of interview, which required assessment through interview and marking on specified parameters. The brochure issued later, including the pre-interview site-verification requirement, did not apply retrospectively. Although the later supplementary lease deed was notarized, there was no reliable material to show that it had been produced before the interview board. The candidate therefore lacked acceptable material before the committee to justify marks under the head relating to capability to provide land and infrastructure, and the selection committee deviated from the applicable criteria.

Conclusion: The selection process was found to be vitiated on the merits, but the defect did not by itself justify upsetting the final relief granted by the Division Bench.

Issue (ii): Whether interference was warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in view of the subsequent events, the functioning dealership, and the public interest involved.

Analysis: The dealership had been operating for years, substantial investment had been made, the panel candidates in the immediate merit list had not challenged the result, and cancellation at that stage would have caused serious practical and public consequences. The Court treated the matter as one where subsequent events and equitable considerations could properly be taken into account to do complete justice.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the dismissal of the challenge to the grant of dealership was upheld.

Final Conclusion: Although irregularity was found in the selection process, the Court refused to disturb the dealership because the later facts and wider consequences made judicial interference inappropriate.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appropriate case, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 may take account of subsequent events and equitable considerations, and may decline to disturb an order despite legal error where complete justice and public interest so require.

---