2025:UHC:7785 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2316 of 2022 Vivek Shrivastava --Petitioner Versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and Another -Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocates: Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate through video conferencing with Ms. Anupriya Kukreti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT 1. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited issued an advertisement No. 2/2022 (R&P), inviting applications for recruitment of Non-Executives. Petitioner responded to said advertisement by submitting online application. According to him, he scored 59 marks in the selection, which entitled him for appointment against the post of Junior Fireman, yet he was denied appointment. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking the following reliefs: “I. To issue any appropriate writ rule or direction in the nature of Certiorarified mandamus to declare the impugned condition L(f) of the advertisement dated 07/05/2022 (Annexure 3) as well as the result dated 02/12/2022 (Annexure 1) as per se illegal, irrational, arbitrary, unconstitutional and unjust and declare it as void for being contrary to the regulations of 1980 and for not including the petitioner's name in the result and to quash the same along with all consequential orders which is to be issued in furtherance to the impugned condition of the advertisement after calling the entire record from the Respondent and to strike down and quash the same along with its effect and operation also, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the Petition or to mould the relief appropriately keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case highlighted in the body of the petition. II. To issue any appropriate writ rule or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the result by accepting his 1" application as the post of Junior Fireman as his 1™ preference after calling the entire records from the respondents or to mould the relief appropriately keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case highlighted in the body of the petition.” 2. It is not in dispute that petitioner had submitted two 1 2025:UHC:7785 applications pursuant to the advertisement, one for the post of Junior Fireman and another for the post of Junior Fire Supervisor. Petitioner claims appointment on the post of Junior Fireman based on his score of marks in the selection. 3. The first application was submitted by petitioner online on 25.05.2022, in which he had applied for the post of Junior Fireman and thereafter he submitted another application online on 27.05.2022 for the post of Junior Fire Supervisor. The first application submitted by petitioner was rejected by relying upon Clause L(f) of the advertisement, which reads as under: L(f) Candidates are advised to submit only one application. In case multiple applications from a candidate are found and established the last one shall be considered as final and the rest shall be rejected. 4. Petitioner relies upon Clause G(i) of the advertisement, which permits a candidate to apply for maximum three posts and submits that Clause L(f) is contrary to the condition given in Clause G(i). Clause G(i) is reproduced below for ready reference: G(i) A candidate can apply for MULTIPLE posts (Maximum Three) for which he/she is eligible. 5. In para 7 of the writ petition, petitioner has stated that in the first application, petitioner indicated the post of Junior Fireman as his first preference; since there was no option in the web portal for the post of Junior Fire Supervisor, therefore he had to apply second time for the said post. 6. Learned counsel for ONGC submits that first application was made by petitioner on 25.05.2022 and thereafter he submitted second application on 2 2025:UHC:7785 27.05.2022. He refers to para 4 of the counter affidavit for submitting that in the two applications submitted by petitioner online, he had given different email address and different mobile numbers with a view to conceal his identity or else the web portal would have not accepted his second application. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since in the web portal, the aforesaid two posts were not simultaneously available and petitioner was eligible for both the posts, therefore, he was compelled to submit second application; ONGC accepted both the applications and issued separate admit cards and petitioner participated in the selection for both the posts, therefore ONGC cannot reject petitioner’s claim for appointment for the post of Junior Fireman. 8. Learned counsel for ONGC submits that in the web portal, different group of posts were displayed and a candidate was entitled to apply for maximum three posts out of a given group of posts; the post of Junior Fireman and Junior Fire Supervisor were included in different groups, therefore a candidate had to choose anyone of the two posts, while submitting online application. 9. He further submits that petitioner earlier applied for the post of Junior Fireman and he thereafter submitted another application in which he applied for the post of Junior Fire Supervisor, which was not permissible and the first application got cancelled in view of the condition mentioned in Clause L(f) of the advertisement. 10. He further submits that petitioner was successful in submitting second online application by concealing his identity which resulted in issuance of two admit cards to 3 2025:UHC:7785 the petitioner and petitioner cannot take benefit of a wrong committed by him and his candidature cannot be considered for both the posts and his application has to be considered only for the post indicated by him in his second application. 11. Learned counsel appearing for ONGC has drawn attention of this Court to the following averment made in para 7 of the counter affidavit: “7…………………As a matter of fact, the candidates were given option of multiple posts in a single application based on eligibility. It also mentions that more than 38,000 candidates have submitted more than one preference as per their eligibility through their single application. An inbuilt check in the online application system was kept to prohibit multiple applications from same candidates by prohibiting second application through combination of mobile number and e-mail address. The petitioner mischievously submitted multiple applications by changing his mobile number and email address to bypass the inbuilt check in online application system. Therefore the admit card was issued for multiple applications by the same candidate. It is however submitted that the recruitment notification clearly notified that mere issue of admit card will not imply that the candidature finally cleared by ONGC as per Clause Q(1) of recruitment notification.” 12. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the ONGC. 13. Clause L(f) of the advertisement forewarned every candidate to submit only one application and the consequence of submitting multiple applications was also indicated that only the last one shall be considered and the earlier application shall be rejected. 14. Petitioner took a chance by submitting two applications for different group of posts and ONGC was justified in rejecting his earlier application in view of the 4 2025:UHC:7785 condition set out in the advertisement. 15. Petitioner has staked claim for appointment to the post of Junior Fireman for which he had applied earlier. Due to rejection of his first application in terms of Clause L(f) of the advertisement, the relief as claimed in this writ petition cannot be granted. 16. Petitioner has raised the issue of conflict between Clause G(i) and Clause L(f) of the advertisement. ONGC, in its counter affidavit has stated that more than 38,000 candidates applied for multiple posts by submitting one application. The averment made in para 7 of the counter affidavit is not rebutted by petitioner, thus this Court has no reason to disbelieve the stand taken by ONGC that every candidate had the opportunity to apply for multiple posts subject to maximum of three, from a group of posts. Two posts for which petitioner applied were included in separate group of posts which appears to be the reason for petitioner to apply second time, which however, was prohibited by the advertisement. 17. Seen in that background, contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that two conditions, mentioned above, are contrary to each other cannot be accepted. The opportunity to apply for multiple posts was limited to a particular group of posts as the web portal did not permit a candidate to apply for two posts taken from different group of posts. The advertisement clearly indicated that in case of multiple applications, the last one shall be treated as final and the remaining will be rejected. If petitioner applied second time by ignoring warning contained in the advertisement, then he himself is to be blamed and the action of ONGC cannot be 5 2025:UHC:7785 faulted. 18. Learned counsel for petitioner then submitted that condition L(f) of the advertisement is contrary to regulations; however, no submission was advanced in support of said contention; which provision of regulation was violated was also not indicated. Even otherwise also, law is well settled that after participating in a selection, an unsuccessful candidate cannot question the conditions set out in the advertisement and rules of the game could have been challenged only before participating in the selection. 19. Learned counsel for ONGC is right in submitting that petitioner is estopped from challenging condition L(f) of the advertisement after being declared unsuccessful in the selection. 20. This Court do not find any arbitrariness in the decision taken by ONGC. Rejection of petitioner’s first application for the post of Junior Fireman is strictly as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. 21. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. _______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 02.09.2025 Mahinder 6 MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92 d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305 B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.09.03 17:43:18 +05'30'