- Case
- SHAHBAZ MUMTAZ KHAN v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (Bombay High Court, 02-04-2025)
- Law
- Companies Act, Constitution of India.
Facts: The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) issued a brochure with a clause (7.2.1(b)) stating that in the event of a tie between two candidates in a tender process, the younger applicant would be preferred. The petitioner and respondent no. 7 both scored 92.8 marks in a tender for a service provider at a retail outlet. The petitioner, aged 34, was ranked second, while respondent no. 7, aged 28, was ranked first due to the tie-breaker clause.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Bombay High Court, challenging the constitutionality of the tie-breaker clause.
Issue: Is the IOCL's policy of preferring a younger candidate over an older candidate in case of a tie in a tender process, as per clause 7.2.1(b) of its brochure, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Can a tenderer challenge a tender condition after participating in the tender process?
Holding: Yes, the High Court held that condition no. 7.2.1(b) of the brochure is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is accordingly struck down. The petition is allowed.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the tie-breaker clause based solely on age within the same age group (21-35 years, for which the same marks were awarded) is arbitrary and discriminatory. The Court noted that IOCL had already classified candidates based on age for awarding marks, and further sub-classification for the purpose of a tie-breaker amounts to treating equals unequally, violating Article 14. The court rejected the argument that a younger person is inherently more suitable for the job. The court also addressed the argument that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the clause after participating in the tender, stating that the challenge to the tie-breaker criteria could only arise when a tie actually occurred. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in The State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar to emphasize that classification must be based on real and substantial distinction.
