Madras High Court
Manikandan Kolandaivelu vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 20 July, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.07.2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
W.P.No.11696 of 2012
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012
Manikandan Kolandaivelu .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
P.B.No.1644, Coimbatore LPG Territory Office
and LPG Filling Plant,
Peelamedu,
Coimbatore-641 004.
2.S.Senthil .. Respondents
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the final mark sheet in respect of interview for domestic LPG distributorship at Location Salem held between 22.02.2012 and 23.02.2012 pursuant to the calling for the application for LPG Distributorship by the first respondent empanelling the second respondent as candidate No.1 and quash the same and to direct the petitioner who is empanelled candidate No.2 as empanelled candidate No.1 and issue the letter of intent to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.T.Seshadri
For Respondents : Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan for R-1
Mr.M.Doraisami, SC
for M/s.Kandan Doraisami for R-2
- - - -
ORDER
The petitioner is the applicant for LPG Distributorship for the location at Salem. In this writ petition, he sought to challenge the final mark sheet in respect of the interview for domestic LPG distributorship at Salem held between 22.2.2012 and 23.2.2012 pursuant to the calling for the application by the first respondent empanelling the second respondent as candidate No.1 and in turn, seeks for a direction to make the petitioner as empanelled candidate No.1 and issue the letter of intent.
2.When the matter came up on 24.04.2012, this court ordered notice of motion to the respondents. On notice a counter affidavit, dated 13.7.2012 was filed by the first respondent. The second respondent also has filed a counter affidavit, dated 02.05.2012 together with typed set of documents.
3.The case of the petitioner was that in the interview, 100 marks were assigned under various heads. The marks assigned between the petitioner and the second respondent are as follows :
Sl.
No. Name of candidate Go down Show room SB /Fds Credit worthi-ness Fixed /other assets Other source of income Education Age Experience Business ability Perso-nality Total marks Remarks Max.
Marks 25 10 18 7 5 5 15 4 4 5 2 100 1 Manikandan Kolandaivelu 25 10 18 7 5 5 15 4 3 3.83 1.67 97.5 Secod 9 Senthil S 25 10 18 7 5 5 15 4 3.17 4.33 1.83 98.33 First
4.The particulars given regarding the location of show room by the second respondent was not correct and marks awarded to the second respondent, i..e, under the head of show room and SB / FDs and experience were not correct and they were highly exaggerated. There is no show room in the location belonging to the second respondent. He had also shown in the savings bank and FDs as having Rs.21.50 lakhs jointly in the name of himself as well as his wife S.Krupa. In terms of the brochure, a sum of Rs.18 lakhs being the maximum to be kept under this head for a minimum period of 90 days from the date of the application. It was reliably learnt that the sum of Rs.18 lakhs did not remain in the bank for a period of 90 days from the date of the application. As far as the marks under the head "experience", the second respondent should have been given Nil for the reason that the brochure provides for experience in direct sale / home delivered products including LPG distributorship, but the second respondent had produced a letter dated 17.05.2001 issued by his employer that he was appointed as an officer in the marketing division. While giving the details of experience under his own letter, it was stated that he was promoted as a Group leader in Sales Planning and as a Deputy Manager in 2009 and in-charge of the establishment for preparedness for high volume growth. This did not satisfy the criteria fixed under the brochure. But, however he was given 3.17 marks under the said head.
5.In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, with reference to the show room, it was stated in paragraph 7(c) as follows :
"7(c)......The candidate has shown own land for showroom situated at 15, Shankar Nagar, Salem, S.No.J54/46 admeasuring 3 metres x 4.5 metres breadth. Clean title of property and site map has been furnished by the 2nd respondent. As such he was awarded marks based on the information given in the application...."
6.With reference to fixed deposit and savings bank, in paragraph 7(g) it was averred as follows:
"(g).....2nd respondent submitted Savings Bank A/c 008401001204 of ICICI in his name for Rs.1,05,000/- and A/c No.8401003855 in his wife's name for Rs.20,50,000/- totaling Rs.21,55,000/- enclosing the certificate issued by ICICI Bank in these accounts. The allegation that 2nd respondent and his wife relied on the same bank account is against norms and criteria is baseless and mischievous. The 2nd respondent has been evaluated regarding financial stability based on the information given in the application with regard to Fixed Deposit standing in his name and his wife who is a family member."
7.With reference experience, it was stated in paragraph 7(h) as follows :
"(h).....As per the guidelines of the Corporation, marks are awarded based on the information given in the application for experience of working in an establishment for minimum one year. The marks will be awarded on the quality rather than the amount of experience. The quality of experience is judged based on the response to the question related to experience in Direct Sales, Home Delivered Products, Trade of Petroleum Products, hospitality / service industry etc by the candidate in the interview. He was allotted 3.17 marks as against 4 marks. Needless to point out the marks were awarded based on the information given in the application for experience of running or working in an establishment for minimum one year and the quality of experience has been judged based on the response to the questions related to experience in Direct Sales / Home Delivered Products based on the subject to the satisfaction of the Interview Committee and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the 2nd respondent has not satisfied the criteria fixed under the brochure."
The same is also supported by the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent.
8.In this context, the learned counsel Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan appearing for the first respondent placed reliance upon a division bench judgment of this court in V.Chandran Vs. Oil Selection Board and three others reported in 1995 (II) CTC 286 for contending that evaluation done by the selection committee cannot be called in question in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and in paragraph 14, it was observed as follows :
"14....The 1st respondent, after considering the materials on record and the personal assessment of merit, business ability, capacity, etc., of the applicants, has prepared a panel according to their merits and granted the distributorship to the 4th respondent by the Letter of Indent dated 29.3.1994. The process of appreciating and weighing the various factors, materials and rival merits, is the function of the 1st respondent Board, which is having the necessary expertise and experience to perform its duties properly. In our view, there cannot therefore be any re-appreciation or re-appraisal of relevant material factors, relative qualifications and evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
9.He also referred to an another decision of the division bench in R.Kalaivani Vs. Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Corporate Office, New Delhi-110 049 and others reported in (2010) 1 MLJ 742, wherein the very same experience parameter was considered by the division bench in paragraph 10. The quality of experience has to be judged based on the response to the questions related to experience and that the marks will be awarded on the quality rather then amount of experience. In the same judgment, in paragraphs 13 and 14, it was observed as follows :
"13.The scope of interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of selection of Distributorship of Indane Gas is considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision V.Chandran V. Oil Selection Board (1995) 2 MLJ 458.
14.Admittedly, no mala fide is alleged against the respondents by the petitioner. The petitioner,having been treated like other candidates, who participated in the interview and the Selection Committee having awarded marks for the experience on the basis of the questions put to the candidates and the answers given by them, there is no arbitrariness as alleged by the petitioner in awarding marks to 46 candidates."
10.In the light of the above factual matrix and legal precedents involved, this court do not think that any case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned selection of the second respondent. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
vvk To Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., P.B.No.1644, Coimbatore LPG Territory Office and LPG Filling Plant, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004