Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit vs Hindusthan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.& Ors on 8 October, 2012
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Vineet Kothari
DSAW No.824/2012
Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit Vs. HPCL & Ors.
1
D.B. Civil Special Appeal no.824/2012
Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit
Vs
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.
Date of order: 8th October 2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the appellant.
Dr. P.S. Bhati ]
Mr. Ravindra Singh ], for the respondent No.4 (Caveator).
Mr. Nikhil Dungawat ]
<><><>
BY THE COURT : (Per Dinesh Maheshwari,J.)
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 09.08.2012 as passed in CWP No.9015/2011 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant against award of dealership of a retail outlet of the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ('HPCL') at Jaitpur on SH-64, District Pali in the open category to the respondent No.4 after finding that there had not been any illegality or arbitrariness in the process of selection.
Shorn of unnecessary details, suffice is to notice for the present purpose that the petitioner-appellant and the respondent No.4 had been the applicants alongwith others for award of dealership of the outlet aforesaid wherefor, the applications were invited under the advertisement dated 29.08.2010. The Selection Committee conducted interviews and proceeded to award the marks under various parameters to the respective candidates. In the final total, the respondent No.4 stood first with 79.8 marks on the scale of DSAW No.824/2012 Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit Vs. HPCL & Ors.
2 100 whereas the petitioner stood second with 77.1 marks. The tabulation of marks could be noticed in the following (reproduced in two parts for convenience): -
Appl Name of Capability to provide infrastructure Capability to arrange finance No the & facility (Maximum marks 25) Candidates Marks Marks Weigh Ready availability of finance Max - Letter awarded by awarded by -ted 20 MARKS ensuring Site Inspection Interview marks Loan/ Committee Committee - Credit (Max 100) worthi-
ness
Liquid Cash Fixed & Income
in the form of Movable
bank fixed assets
deposits
35 12 4 4 5
Hanuman
Singh
1 Rajpurohit 86 35 30.1 12 0 4 5
2 Kewal Ram 0 0 0 12 4 3.8 5
3 Lumba Ram 87 0 0 12 0 0 5
Man
4 Kanwar 88 35 30.8 12 0 0 5
(Contd. Below)
Appl Name of Educa- Capability to generate Age Experi- Busi- Perso- Total Re-
No the tional business (Max. marks 10) ence ness nality Marks marks
Candidates
Quali- acu-
fication men
Tied up Project Overall
volume report assess
ment
(viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) (xiv) (xv) (xvi)
15 5 3 2 4 4 5 2 100
Hanuman
Singh
1 Rajpurohit 10 5 2 1 4 0 2 2 77.1 2nd
Kewal
2 Ram 10 5 2 1 4 4 2 1 53.8
Lumba
3 Ram 10 5 2 2 4 4 2 2 48.0.
Man
4 Kanwar 12 5 2 1 4 4 2 2 79.8 1st
The appellant stated grievance against the result so declared by making a representation on 02.12.2010 with the contention that the Selection Committee had erroneously awarded him 'zero' marks DSAW No.824/2012 Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit Vs. HPCL & Ors.3
under the sub-head 'Fixed & movable assets' while ignoring the copy of the registered sale deed of the land worth Rs.4,40,000/-, which was assessed and certified by the Sub-Registrar, Sumerpur on 25.08.2010; and the registration certificate of Maruti Van worth Rs.1,70,000/-. The appellant also stated grievance against awarding of 'zero' marks towards 'Experience' while maintaining that he had the requisite experience as per the certificate produced. The appellant further stated the grievance that he was awarded only '2' marks out of '3' on the sub-head 'Project report' though his project report was a comprehensive one, complete in all respects. The appellant also stated the grievance that he was awarded only '2' marks out of '5' on the 'Business acumen' though he was having the experience of trading in glass and plywood while managing 5 persons.
It appears that the appellant had earlier filed a writ petition, being CWP No.795/2011, against the selection of the respondent No.4 but, during the pendency of that writ petition, the respondents sent the communication dated 25.07.2011 informing the appellant about rejection of his representation. The appellant, thus, sought permission and withdrew from the said writ petition with liberty to challenge the order passed by the respondents on his objections. Thereafter, the petitioner-appellant filed the writ petition (CWP No.9015/2011) that has been considered and dismissed on merits by the learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned order dated 09.08.2012.
The learned Single Judge considered the record including the reply submissions of the respondents and found untenable the DSAW No.824/2012 Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit Vs. HPCL & Ors.
4 objections of the appellant regarding the marks as awarded. In regard to the sub-head 'Fixed & movable assets', the learned Single Judge referred to the requirements in the guidelines that the valuation report, duly certified by the Government Valuer, in support of the assessment was necessary; and observed that the guidelines had been framed by the respondents so as to ensure transparency in the selection process and were required to be adhered to. The learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner-appellant, who defaulted by not producing the Government Valuer's report, could not be accorded any relaxation; and rejected the contention of the appellant that the valuation as put by the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the document ought to have been considered with the observations that while awarding marks, the value of the property on the date of submission of the application was to be taken into consideration and, therefore, the value of property as mentioned in the document in the remote past could not have been made the basis of valuation. The learned Single Judge further observed that no relaxation was allowable in the norms laid down to any individual because it might adversely affect the selection process. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, observed as under: -
"..........In the considered opinion of this court, once the guidelines have been framed by the respondent so as to ensure transparency in the selection process, the same have to be adhered to strictly and have to be applied uniformly. The petitioner who has admittedly defaulted in not producing the Government Approved Valuer's report in support of his fixed and movable assets, cannot claim relaxation in the norms as a matter of right. Obviously, applying the norms specified, the respondents are not awarding the marks under the said sub-head to the candidates who have failed to produce the requisite valuer report. In this view of the matter, the respondents have committed no error in refusing to accept the assessment of the market value of the property in question alleged to have been made by the Sub-Registrar for the DSAW No.824/2012 Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit Vs. HPCL & Ors.5
purpose of assessment of the stamp duty. It is pertinent to note that while awarding the marks, the value of the property as on the date of submitting the application has to be taken into consideration and therefore, the value of the property as mentioned in the document of title acquired in the remote past cannot be the basis for the evaluation in terms of the norms laid down. Further, any relaxation granted in the norms laid down to an individual may lead to pick and choose and thus, shall adversely affect the fairness of the selection process, which cannot be countenanced by this court. In this view of the matter, the action of the Selection Committee in refusing to award the marks to the petitioner under the head "Fixed & Movable Assets" for the want of Valuer's report in conformity with the norms laid down cannot be faulted with."
As regards the business experience, the learned Single Judge again referred to the guidelines and found that only the managerial/supervisory experience of one year as on the date of application would have made the applicant entitled to any marks; and the experience shown by the appellant, as 'DSM' with HPCL dealer at Sanderao, was not that of managerial or supervisory capacity. It was pointed out by the respondents that the abbreviation 'DSM' stood for 'Dealer Salesman' and that was not of any managerial/supervisory function. In fact, it was not even disputed on behalf of the appellant that he had no experience to his credit of any managerial/supervisory capacity. The learned Single Judge found and observed as under:-
".......It is pertinent to note that only the managerial/supervisory experience of one year as on the date of application makes the candidate entitled for full marks as specified for different fields of experience and no marks are awarded for experience less than one year. The criteria for awarding the marks having been specifically laid down as aforesaid, no discretion is left with the Selection Committee to award the marks to the candidates claiming experience on the basis of the services rendered by him while performing the job other than managerial/supervisory. It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner had no experience to his credit of performing the managerial/supervisory functions, while working as DSM with the HPCL Dealar at Sanderao. In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this Court, the Selection Committee has DSAW No.824/2012 Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit Vs. HPCL & Ors.6
committed no error in awarding zero marks to the petitioner under the head of "Business Experience".
In regard to the marks awarded for the project report, the learned Single Judge observed that there was no fixed method for evaluation and, obviously, the assessment of project report was to be made by the members of the Selection Committee on their own wisdom; and in the absence of any allegation of arbitrariness or mala fide, the appellant was not entitled to question the evaluation. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention in regard to the marks for project report in the following:
"13. Coming to the marks awarded for the Project Report, it is relevant to note that marks for Project Report are based on quality of the Project Report submitted and no fixed method for evaluation of the marks has been specified. Obviously, the assessment of the project report has to be made by the members of the Selection Committee applying their wisdom and therefore, in absence of any allegations of arbitrariness or mala fides on the part of the members of the Selection Committee in awarding the marks while evaluating the project report, the petitioner cannot be permitted to question the same. Therefore, the marks awarded by the Selection Committee to the petitioner under the said sub-head also cannot be said to be erroneous."
Seeking to question the order aforesaid, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in proceeding as if there had not been any allegation of arbitrariness in the selection process; and in failing to consider that the allegations of arbitrariness were implicit when the petitioner-appellant contended that he had been awarded lesser marks in an arbitrary manner. The learned counsel submitted that with the documents pertaining to fixed and movable assets having been placed on record by the appellant in the form of registered sale deed, the deposit receipts with the Credit Cooperative Society, and the registration DSAW No.824/2012 Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit Vs. HPCL & Ors.
7 certificate of Maruti Van, the Selection Committee had been entirely unjustified in awarding him zero marks on that score. According to the learned counsel, the valuation as adopted by the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of registration of the document was not entirely irrelevant and, having been made by a responsible officer of the Government in discharge of his official duties, ought to have been taken into consideration; and the appellant could not have been awarded zero marks on a hyper-technical reference to the so called want of the valuer's report. The learned counsel further submitted that awarding of zero marks towards experience was not proper when the requisite experience certificate issued by one dealer was placed on record; that awarding of only 2 marks out of 3 towards project report and again, only 2 marks out of 5 towards business acumen had been unjustified in the face of the documents produced by the appellant. The learned counsel, thus, contended that the respondents have illegally rejected the sound candidature of the appellant and the learned Single Judge has been in error in dismissing the writ petition on rather hyper-technical observations.
Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, we are clearly of the view that the baseless writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Judge; and no case for interference is made out.
True it is that the appellant has been awarded 'zero' marks on the sub-head 'Fixed & movable assets' but, in the face of the given requirements under the guidelines, where the valuer's report was required to be filed in regard to such assets; and the admitted DSAW No.824/2012 Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit Vs. HPCL & Ors.
8 position that the appellant did not file any such report, the Selection Committee cannot be faulted at.
It is noticed that in this selection process, the necessary parameters had been delineated with allocation of different marks for different attributes. The first major head had been of 'Capability to provide infrastructure & facility' wherein, the marks were awarded by the Site Inspection Committee and then, by the Interview Committee and thereafter, weighted marks were given out of maximum 35. The appellant was awarded 86 marks by the Site Inspection Committee whereas the respondent No.4 was awarded 88 marks, and the Interview Committee awarded 35 marks to each of them; and, in the ultimate weighted marks, the appellant secured 30.1 whereas the respondent No.4 secured 30.8.
Then, the second major head had been of 'Capability to arrange finance' that carried out maximum 25 marks but was divided into two sub-heads, i.e., 'Ready availability of finance (20 marks)' and 'Credit worthiness (5 marks)'. 'Ready availability of finance' was further sub-divided into 3 different parameters, namely: 'Liquid cash in the form of bank deposit (12 marks)', 'Fixed & movable assets (4 marks)', and 'Income (4 marks)'.
On the sub-head 'Credit worthiness', the appellant and so also the respondent No.4 got '5' marks each. On the sub-head 'Income', though the appellant was awarded '4' marks, the respondent No.4 got 'zero' marks. On 'Fixed & movable assets', the appellant and the respondent No.4 both got 'zero' marks; and in relation to "Liquid cash' both of them got '12' marks. DSAW No.824/2012
Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit Vs. HPCL & Ors.
9 Thus, so far the parameter of ready availability of finance was concerned, in the sub-heads 'Liquid cash' and 'Income' the appellant was awarded maximum marks. However, on 'Fixed & movable assets', the petitioner-appellant was awarded zero marks and that was for the fault on his part in not producing the valuation reports. The necessity of valuation report had distinctly been stated in paragraph 16 of the guideline in the following: -
व त व तय स तत व त क ततक ल उपलब त (20 अक) आ ,1क द र अप*,
अध कतम मजबत आ ,1* क, सम * B
25 अक म प त5त 1 त ,ज%
क, सतय प* क,
आ र पर ।
पररसमपततय+ क,
सम * B म सरक र
द र अ*5म%द1त
मलय क*कत Bओ
दर व ध त
पम णIत मलय क*
ररप%टB अत* यB ह
बक बलस, फ!क # ड#प%ससट, सध(बद
कपत*य+ क, श,यर इतय द1 क, रप म 12 .
*क1
* (ल ए अ(ल सपवतय
4
म भसम, इम रत, 1क
5 *, घर
ह* इतय द1 श समल ह
* आय
आय म कव: आय, वय स यगत आय,
बय ज फकर य , र=यलट? 1 त ,ज स कय 4
द र सतय वपत ह%
In the admitted position that the appellant failed to produce the valuer's report as required, we are unable to find any illegality on the part of the respondents in awarding him 'zero' marks and any error on the part of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the contention in that regard.
The suggestion that the Sub-Registrar's valuation ought to have been considered and the valuation of the vehicle also could not have been taken as zero have their short-comings when examined in the light of the fact that it had been a matter of open selection where the given requirements were to be applied uniformly to all the DSAW No.824/2012 Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit Vs. HPCL & Ors.
10 candidates. If any suggestion of drawing inferences on the basis of documents on record and thereby assuming any valuation is to be considered, the same would convert the basic certainty into total uncertainty and then, it might become the choice of the Selection Committee to put any valuation on implication or inference. Such a position would not be in conformity with the requirements of objective assessment with application of the given criteria uniformly to all. Thus, in the given fact situation, where the petitioner-appellant failed to submit the necessary document i.e., the valuer's report, the only result could have been of awarding 'zero' marks in that regard.
So far as the other submissions are concerned, they have only been noted to be rejected. Admittedly, the appellant had no working experience in managerial/supervisory capacity; and the certificate stating his working as 'Delivery Salesman' could not have fetched any marks towards the experience when the same was requisite in managerial/supervisory capacity. As regards the business acumen, merely for the petitioner-appellant alleging that he was engaged in some business was not sufficient; it was the acumen that was required to be assessed and, obviously, in this regard, the assessment was to be made by the Selection Committee after interview. Similar is the position in regard to the project report. The judgment on its value and worth was, obviously, to be made by the Selection Committee after due evaluation; and it cannot be assumed that the Committee has acted arbitrarily in awarding only 2 marks to the petitioner-appellant out of 3 for the project report.
In the ultimate analysis, we are satisfied that the grievance of the petitioner-appellant against selection process in question had not DSAW No.824/2012 Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit Vs. HPCL & Ors.
11 been of any substance; and the selection process does not appear vitiated by any illegality or arbitrariness. Thus, in our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the baseless writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant; and there is no reason to entertain this intra-court appeal.
Accordingly, and in view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed.
cpgoyal/- (VINEET KOTHARI), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.