Dealership lottery selection made before OBC-class ruling remains protected, Calcutta High Court holds

IOCL advertised a rural retail-outlet dealership in Hooghly under the OBC category. The petitioner applied and was placed second in the draw of lots; the private respondent was declared successful.

The petitioner challenged the respondent’s eligibility on the ground that his OBC class was among the 77 classes struck down prospectively in Amal Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal, decided on 22 May 2024.

The judgment generally identifies the draw date as 14 December 2023, although its account contains inconsistent dates: paragraph 5 refers to 4 December 2023 and paragraph 27 to 14 February 2023.

Whether the private respondent’s dealership was liable to be cancelled because his OBC class fell within the 77 classes struck down in Amal Chandra Das, notwithstanding the judgment’s prospective operation and protection for persons who had already succeeded in a selection process.

Whether a draw of lots under the applicable IOCL dealership guidelines constituted the selection process, such that the successful candidate had “succeeded in any selection process” before Amal Chandra Das.

The court applied Clause (K) of the directions in Amal Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal, which protected members of the affected classes who had already availed reservation benefits or succeeded in a selection process before the judgment.

Under the applicable OMC guidelines, a draw of lots among eligible candidates was the prescribed method for selecting a dealership candidate; where the draw identified the successful candidate, that candidate had succeeded in the selection process on the draw date, even though success did not create an indefeasible right to the dealership.

The court also referred to Sri Vithanala Yagnesh v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on the acceptability of selection by draw of lots, and to a Kerala High Court decision treating the draw as the final step in a selection process.

The court treated the private respondent’s selection in the prescribed draw of lots as the relevant point at which he succeeded in the selection process.

It distinguished that success—which brought him within Clause (K)’s protection—from an absolute or indefeasible right to the dealership, which did not arise merely from being selected.

Because the respondent’s draw preceded the 22 May 2024 judgment in Amal Chandra Das, the later letter of intent, appointment and commissioning were regarded as steps implementing the earlier selection, not as a fresh post-judgment selection.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.