Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharat Gupta vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 22 March, 2011
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2096 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 22, 2011
Bharat Gupta
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. G.B.S.Dhillon, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner has impugned the result announced by Indian Oil Corporation on 23.1.2009 in regard to L.P.G. Distribution in the area of Phagwara-2, District Kapurthala. Plea is that the assessment has not been made in accordance with the advertisement as well as brochure published laying down the criteria for assessing the relative merits.
An advertisement was issued in the Newspaper on 18.9.2006 for Indane (L.P.G.) Distribution in the State of Punjab. Last CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2096 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 2 }:
date of submission of the application was 17.10.2006, which was extended to 29.11.2006. The petitioner submitted his application for grant of Distributorship for the area Phagwara-2, District Kapurthala on 29.11.2006. The petitioner was interviewed on 9.7.2008 and the result was declared on 23.1.2009. The petitioner was placed at 10th place amongst the successful candidates and so has filed this writ petition to challenge the assessment made.
Reference is made to the advertisement and the evaluation criteria as laid down. The criteria and the marks for assessment were as under:-
"a) Capability to provide infrastructure 35 marks
b) Capability to provide finance 35 marks
c) Educational qualifications 15 marks
d) Age 4 marks
e) Experience 4 marks
f) Business ability/acumen 5 marks
g) Personality 2 marks _____________ Total 100 marks ______________ Reference is also made to the brochure issued containing parameters for awarding marks based on various documents attached. As per clause 14.1 of the brochure, the applicant owning a suitable land/godown was to be awarded 25 marks. 10 marks were to be awarded to a person who owned suitable land/shop for showroom. Under the head of educational qualification, a person holding a professional degree was entitled to 15 marks. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2096 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 3 }:
registered cooperative societies, corporations owned or controlled by the Central/State Governments etc. were not to be judged and awarded marks in the parameters of educational qualification, age and personality. They were to be given full marks.
The petitioner being M.B.A. had attached his mark sheet dated 23.11.2006 given to him by Rayat Institute of Management. Copy of this mark sheet is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-
4. At the time of submitting application, the petitioner had not been awarded degree but he had received the same when he appeared for interview.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he had fulfilled the condition for obtaining full marks in the criteria of infrastructure. In support, the petitioner had submitted a lease deed executed in his favour by his father for a period of 25 years for a plot measuring 120`x120` at village Khothran, which was approximately at a distance of 3 Kms. from Phagwara. He had also relied upon another lease deed for same duration in respect of shop measuring 20`x20` to claim that he was entitled to full 35 marks in the capability to provide infrastructure and facilities.
After interview and on the basis of marks given in various criterion, the petitioner was placed at No.10 in the merit list. The petitioner was awarded 18 marks for godown and 7 marks for showroom. In all, the petitioner was awarded 79.6% marks. The petitioner was given 10 marks in educational qualification. The petitioner would claim that he was entitled to 25 marks in the capacity to provide infrastructure of godown and 10 marks for showroom. The petitioner would further plead that he was entitled to 15 marks in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2096 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 4 }:
educational qualification and on that basis, he was entitled to additional 15 marks and, thus, would have earned 94.6% marks in all to stand first in order of merit.
In the written statement filed, the respondents would contest the locus of the petitioner to file this writ petition. Reference is made to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DA Slounke Vs. BS Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434 to urge that it is not the function of the courts to hear the appeals over the decision of the selection committee and to secutinise the relative merits of the candidates. As per the respondents, the petitioner was only wanting this court to review or re-adjudge the material place before the selection committee and give preference/priority to the petitioner over the selected candidates by re-appreciating the material and the documentary evidence. This course, as per the respondents, would be impermissible. Besides objection in regard to the writ being premature and availability of alternative remedy is also raised.
While replying to the merits, it is stated that the certificate issued by the Rayat Institute of Management does not state if the petitioner had passed the prescribed course and had qualified for award of M.B.A. Degree. In the said certificate, it is only mentioned that the petitioner was bonafide student of abovesaid Institute and contains marks obtained by him in four semesters. Accordingly, his B.Com Degree was taken into consideration and marks were awarded accordingly. It is also pointed out that 25 marks are allotted in the capacity to provide infrastructure and facilities to those candidates who have a clear tittle of a suitable land for the purpose of godown and another 10 marks are allotted to those who owned a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2096 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 5 }:
suitable land or shop for showroom. It is pointed out that the petitioner had not claimed the possession of the land for godown under column 12(a) of the application and had left all the relevant columns blank at page 3. though the petitioner was having a unregistered lease deed and as per the policy he was granted 18 marks under head "capability to arrange infrastructure and facilities- showroom". The petitioner had also not submitted No Objection Certificate from the owner of the land. Accordingly, it is pleaded that the petitioner was rightly assessed and there is no case of any arbitrary assessment which would call for any interference by writ court.
I have heard the counsel for the parties.
The primary submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that he was under assessed in the criteria of educational qualification inasmuch as that his M.B.A. Degree was not taken into consideration for assessing his merit. The claim of the petitioner further is that he has been under assessed in the criteria of infrastructure and facilities-showroom. The petitioner has placed on record the certificate submitted by him alongwith the application form in support of the assertion that he possessed an M.B.A. Degree. Annexure P-4 only recites that the petitioner is a bonafide student of the institution in Session 2004-2006 in M.B.A.Course. This certificate cannot be termed as a degree of M.B.A. The petitioner though had in his possession a degree while appearing for the interview but this degree had not been annexed with the application. Annexure P-4 cannot be taken as a degree. The respondents are justified in ignoring Annexure P-4 as it is not a degree. The petitioner, thus, is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2096 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 6 }: not justified in making grievance in regard to his assessment so far as educational qualification is concerned.
The respondents are fully justified in pointing out that the full marks are given to those against the criteria of infrastructure who are the owner of the godown and the showroom. The petitioner had only a lease in his favour, which was also an unregistered one. The petitioner could not claim possession of the godown and the showroom and, thus, is not justified in claiming that he was entitled to full marks in this criteria. The approach adopted by the respondents is fair, just and reasonable. There is no fault found or noticed in the decision making process. The court while exercising writ jurisdiction can go into the decision making process and not the decision as such.
In fact, the respondents would refer to the judgment in the case of Smt.Monika Gupta Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 2010(5) SCALE 643, where action of the selection committee to award zero marks under the heading infrastructure was upheld on the ground that the candidate had neither given any indication in the application form about availability of land for godown and/or showroom and nor she had annexed any documents that she had secured lease of land or the godown and the showroom necessary for operating L.P.G.Distributorship. It is, thus, clear that the selection committee did not commit any error while granting marks to the petitioner. Reference here can also be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Shree Gomukh marketing Private Limited Versus Hindustan Petroleum company Limited, Panipat and another in Civil Writ Petition No.15681 of 2007, dated CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2096 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 7 }: 16.9.2008, where it is held that in the matter of an allotment of a petrol pump, the courts while exercising the power of judicial review do not examine the marks given to each candidates for allotment of a commercial venture. A mere power to choose cannot be termed arbitrary.
The principle of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by the Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favourtism. There are, however, inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues of social policy. They, thus, are not essentially justiciable and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by judicial review. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision- making process itself. It is, thus, different from an appeal. When hearing an appeal, the court is concerned with the merits of the decision under appeal. Since the power of judicial review is not an appeal from the decision, the court cannot substitute its own decision. This apart, the court is hardly equipped to do so and it would not be desirable also. Where the selection or rejection is arbitrary, certainly the court would interfere. It is not the function of a Judge to act as a superboard or with zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substitute its judgment for that of the administrator. Reference in this regard case can be made to Nottinghamshire County Council Versus Secretary of State for the Environment & others, (1986) 1 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2096 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 8 }:
All ER 199. This view is followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651. That being the scope of judicial review in such like matters, no case for interference certainly is made out. There is no infirmity pointed out in the decision making process. Only decision is under challenge, which apparently would be beyond the scope of writ court to interfere.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
March 22,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE