Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shakun Arora (Mrs.) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: RLW2006(1)RAJ55, 2005(4)WLC530
Author: K.S. Rathore
Bench: K.S. Rathore
JUDGMENT K.S. Rathore, J.
1.The Petitioner has challenged the selection process for allotment of petrol pump on the ground that the respondent has not properly marked the petitioner under various categories and given much emphasis that although the petitioner was eligible to secure 20 out of 20 marks for the ready availability of finance but instead of 20, 18 marks were awarded. Again, for the purpose of project report, instead of 3, only 2 marks were awarded and same is the position with the overall assessment and instead of 1.7, 1.5 marks were allotted and same is with the experience and only 1 mark was awarded instead of 4. Under the category of business ability/acumen the petitioner deserves to be awarded 4 marks whereas 2.7 marks were awarded and if the marks would have been correctly awarded for which the petitioner is eligible the petitioner would stand at No. 1 and able to get the allotment of petrol pump in her favour.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents which were essentially required were submitted before the respondents but the same were not properly considered and have arbitrarily awarded wrong marking under various heads and was deprived from getting allotment of petrol pump in his favour.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also referred norms for evaluating the candidates more particularly 16.1 by which marks are allocated for assessment of overall suitability.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no grievance with regard to discretionary marks, but the marks under the other category should be awarded correctly as the petitioner fulfill the requirement and there is no option with the respondent to deduct the marks.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent has not adopted fair practice while awarding marks under various categories.
6. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in the case SJS Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that power vested must be exercised bona fide and fairly.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present matter is of such nature where this Court should have exercised power of judicial review of the decision taken by the respondents as Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., held that the judicial review is permissible if the impugned action is against law and in violation of prescribed procedure or unreasonable or arbitrary or malafide. Therefore, while exercising power under Article 226 this Court in view of the ratio decided by the Supreme Court has got power of judicial review.
8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. submits that the petitioner has got no case as the marks awarded by the respondents are absolutely in accordance with the policy.
9. Mr. Kasliwal further submits that not only the petitioner has financial capability but also the petitioner has submitted details of the liquid cash in form of fixed deposits of Rs. 10 to 15 lacs and such 12 marks are to be allocated to the petitioner but 12 marks are awarded on the basis of leading question and also verifying documents submitted.
10. He further submits that leading questions are asked to the petitioner after verifying the documents. Marks for financial capability is awarded under the category of ready availability of finance and 18 marks were awarded. The petitioner has wrongly interpreted that the moment anybody able to submit the fixed deposits of Rs. 10 to 15 lacs without putting a leading question and without verifying the document should be awarded 12 marks is absolutely contrary to the norms prescribed.
11. As challenged by the petitioner that for the project report the petitioner is entitled to get three marks out of three it is no doubt that the project report is submitted by the petitioner based on report for releasing sales potential but again marks can be awarded after asking questions and production of documents including affidavit from prospective customers in support of claim. As after asking question and verifying documents the respondent thought it proper to award only two marks which cannot be said to be arbitrary unreasonable. The same position is with the overall assessment and which is also based on the leading question asked by the interview Board. Same with the experience and overall assessment business ability.
12. Learned Counsel for the respondents in support of his submissions placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Amrik Singh v. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2382 wherein in Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that scope of judicial review is limited- court cannot go into correctness of adverse remarks nor into assessment of merit made by Selection Board in matter of promotion.
13.He also placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case Dr. Rajesh Sharma and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2003 Western Law Cases (Raj) UC 116 wherein it was observed that the Court cannot sit as appellate body over decision of expert body in matter of requisite qualification for appointment in question.
14. Having heard rival submissions of the respective parties and upon perusal of the Schedule-A which provides allocation of marks on various para meters and norms prescribed and Schedule B and C which is comparative chart prepared by the petitioner regarding marks awarded and marks are to be awarded, as per norms, of-course the allocation of marks are there, but the maximum marks can only be awarded if the petitioner also properly answer the leading question with regard to various para meters and after assessing overall assessment with the help of the documents and the answer given by the petitioner marks are only awarded which cannot be said to be wrong marking and in view of the ratio decided by Supreme Court in the various judgments as referred by the respondents there is no scope for judicial review as this Court is not expert to re appreciate the suitability of the petitioner for allotment of the petrol pump and it is not such case where any interference while exercising extraordinary power under Article 226 is required and the petitioner is not able to make out any case to interfere with the process conducted by the respondents for allotment of petrol pump.
15. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.