LPA No. 1098 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1098 of 2011 Date of decision 4 .7 .2011 Smt. Anuradha Saini . Appellant Versus . Union of India and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate Advocate for the appellant Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the caveator- respondent no. 6 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 27.5.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2620 of 2001 rejecting the claim made by the appellant that respondent no.2 was not entitled to allotment of LPG distributorship as she was unfairly granted more marks under the heading 'Capability to provide Infrastructure and Facilities (as on the date of the application)'. 2. Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. The Indian Oil Corporation- respondent no.2 (for brevity 'the Corporation') invited applications on 9.11.2007 (P.1) for appointment of LPG distributorship inter-alia for Punhana and the site was reserved for open (woman) category. The appellant applied on 10.12.2007 (P.2). The selection process was to be finalized on the basis of evaluation criterion by allocating marks to eligible applicants as per clause 17 of the LPA No. 1098 of 2011 2 advertisement (P.1) and clause 14 of the common brochure (P.3) adopted by the Corporation as per parameters prescribed by the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India. After scrutiny, the petitioner alongwith respondent nos. 6 to 12 were found eligible by the Level-I Committee. On the basis of the eligibility criterion, Level-I Committee awarded 85.4 marks to the petitioner out of 89 marks because she was owner of the land for godown alongwith show room. It has been claimed that she submitted registered sale deed showing her valid title. The petitioner in the writ petition has alleged that respondent nos. 6, 8,9 and 11 do not own the land for godown and show room and therefore did not qualify to claim marks under the first category of table given in Clause 14.1 of the brochure. It was claimed that respondent no. 6 at best ought to have been awarded 18 marks because she had a firm offer as per the provisions of the table given underneath clause 14.1 of the brochure. Additionally, 7 marks could have been awarded for suitable land/ shop / show room. It was further asserted that possession on the basis of lease deed was not reflected in the Jamabandi which created a doubt about the authenticity of the documents annexed by the petitioner. On 10.12.2008 (P.14), she was called for interview which was to be held from 26.12.2008 to 30.12.2008 and the same was completed on 30.12.2008. On 21.8.2009, the writ petitioner-respondent appeared before the Screening Committee for interview in pursuance of letter dated 27.7.2009 (P.15). Respondent nos. 6 to 12 were also called for interview on 20.8.2009 and 21.8.2009. Eventually the result of the interview was declared on 4.9.2009 on the website site (P.16 and P.17). The merit position was also displayed (P.19). The appellant filed the writ petition which has been dismissed by LPA No. 1098 of 2011 3 the learned Single Judge vide impugned order. 3. Before the learned Single Judge she has prayed for quashing the marks sheet (P.16 and P.17) , the merit panel (P.19), and the memo dated 31.12.2009 (P.23) with a further prayer for awarding of marks afresh in accordance with the provisions made in clause 14 of the brochure. The learned Single Judge did not feel impressed with any of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and rejected the claim by a short order which reads as under: “The petitioner, who was an applicant for allotment of LPG Distributorship and had unsuccessfully participated in the selection process, has challenged the same through present writ petition. The primary grievance raised by the petitioner is in allocation of marks and the evaluation done in this case in the field of capacity to provide infrastructure. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has made reference to various documents to point out to certain anomalous position where there is variations in the parameters to assess candidates having lease in their name and in the name of their relative. The variation is in the brochure vis-a-vis the advertisement. The petitioner has made an attempt to build a case that the selected candidate was wrongly evaluated and given 25 marks in the infrastructure, whereas according to the brochure she could have been given only 18 marks. Merely on account of some anomaly or so called anomaly or some variation in the advertisement and the brochure, it cannot LPA No. 1098 of 2011 4 be allowed to have unfair and absurd consequences. It will not be legally proper to hold that a person, who has lease in his or her own name, should get less marks than in cases of lease where the same is in the name of any of his family member. Even otherwise, the evaluation and the manner thereof ought to be left to the respondents as it is the decision making process, which is subject to judicial review and not the decision as such. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed.” 4. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that in accordance with the provisions of clause 14.1 , respondent no.6 could not have been awarded 25 marks as she had only a lease of land suitable for the storage and godown and likewise, she did not have any registered sale deed in respect of the suitable land/ shop for show room and therefore she could have been awarded only 7 marks whereas she has been awarded inflated marks . According to the learned counsel respondent no.6 -Ruchi Sharma, would fall under the category @@- (Agreement to purchase/ lease suitable land/godown) as she did not own any piece of land. She has only lease of suitable land/ godown and suitable land for shop/ show room. It has been maintained that even the Field Investigation Report dated 16.11.2009 (P.24) had found that the case of respondent no.6 fell under the category @@-Agreement to purchase/ lease suitable land/godown and only 18 marks could have been awarded to her. Another argument raised by the learned counsel is that experience certificate submitted by respondent no.6 has been found to be false. As per the Field LPA No. 1098 of 2011 5 Investigation Report (P.24), she has falsely claimed in her application dated 10.12.2007 (P.2) that she worked as Assistant Manager from 9.10.2006 to 30.9.2007. According to the learned counsel the period when she worked from 2.8.2005 to 2.11.2005 coincide with the period when she was pursuing her full time MBA degree course. The last submission made by the learned counsel is that the appellant should have been awarded 4.4 marks by taking into account the income of her husband whereas she has been awarded only 2.3 marks without considering her husband's income. 5. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. In the present time, it has become fashionable to challenge every selection without having any regard to the fairness permeating the same. The appellant having participated in the selection process cannot turn around and say that selection of respondent no. 6 was unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is because of the aforesaid reason that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal v. State of J & K (1995) 3 SCC 486 has held that a writ petition challenging selection cannot be entertained if the petitioner has participated in the selection process. However, counsel for the appellant has argued that the allocation of marks would not attract any such principle and if it is found that marks are wrongly awarded, then judicial review is imperative. In order to examine the first submission made by the learned counsel, it would be appropriate to read Clause 14.1 of the brochure, the relevant part of which is extracted as under: “14.1 Allocation of marks on various parameters based on documents will be carried out as per the information given in the application. LPA No. 1098 of 2011 6 Parameter Sub Head Description Max marks Evaluation Capability to provide infrastructure and facilities (as on the date of application Suitable land for LPG storage godown / godown Owns @- Having clear title/ Registered Sales Deed of the suitable land/godown 25 Based on the information & statement given in the application Or Firm offer @@ Having agreement to purchase/ lease suitable land/ godown 18 Based on the information & statement given in the application Or can arrange 10 Based on the information & statement given in the application Suitable land/ shop for show room Owns @ Having clear title/ Registered Sales Deed of the suitable land/ shop for showroom 10 Based on the information and statement given in the application or Firm offer @@ Having agreement to purchase suitable land/ shop for showroom 7 Based on the information and statement given in the application Or Can arrange 5 Based on the information and statement given in the application Sub total maxim marks 35 xx xx xx xx xx xx @ Owns means having clear ownership title of the property or on long leased (minimum 15 yrs) in the name of family member as defined in eligibility criteria/ multiple distributorship norm duly supported by documents. @@ Firm offers means an agreement on stamp paper for sale or lease (minimum 15 yrs) between the applicant and the owner duly supported by documents. “ 6. A perusal of the above table would show that under the heading 'capability to provide infrastructure and facilities (as on the date of application)' one of the parameters is suitable land for LPG storage/ godown. If the land is owned with clear title of registered sale deed for such LPA No. 1098 of 2011 7 a suitable land/ godown then 25 marks are to be awarded to an applicant. The expression 'owns' has been further clarified at the mark @. A perusal of mark @ would show that it means either there should be a clear ownership title of the property or it should have long lease (minimum 15 years) in the name of family members as defined in the eligibility criteria/ multiple distributorship norm duly supported by documents. The other category is where 18 marks are to be awarded. There has to be firm offer @@ -having agreement to purchase/ lease suitable land/ godown. Again at mark @@ it is clarified that Firm offers means an agreement on stamp paper for sale or lease (minimum 15 yrs) between the applicant and the owner duly supported by documents. Where 10 marks are to be awarded, the candidate is required to show that she could arrange suitable land for LPG Storage/ Godown. Respondent no.6 has been awarded 25 marks because her case is covered by the clarification given in reference @ as she has suitable property on long lease in her name. Shri Atma Ram, learned Senior counsel has argued that if that interpretation is adopted then there would be no difference between a firm offer as clarified at @@and owner of suitable land who has registered sale deed in her favour. However, we are not impressed with the aforesaid argument because in the first case where 25 marks are to be awarded there can either be registered sale deed showing the title of the applicant in respect of the suitable land for godown or the land could be on long lease (minimum 15 years) in the name of a family member or in her own name. In the present case, the lease deed is for 20 years which was executed in favour of respondent no. 6 on 6.12.2007 i.e. well before the last date for submission of the application form. It is to come in operation on that date. Therefore, she has been rightly awarded 25 marks. The category where 18 LPA No. 1098 of 2011 8 marks are to be allocated there has to be a firm offer only and not the actual lease deed which might be in operation. In that case, the lease deed has to commence from some future date because it is required to be only a firm offer as against the actual lease. Therefore we have no doubt in our mind that 25 marks have been rightly awarded to respondent no.6. Likewise, 7 marks have been rightly awarded for the same reason in respect of suitable land/ shop for show room. 7. The argument with regard to experience certificate has also failed to impress us. In the written statement filed by respondent nos. 2 to 5 it has been pointed out that the Investigating Officer found that she worked in BPO Sparsh from 2.8.2005 till 9.11.2005 and her PPF number was MH/ 44793/9065. It was also found by the Investigating Officer that although her work experience in the application form is reflected from M/s Perfect Solutions from 9.10.2006 to 30.9.2007. However as per the confirmation received from M/s Perfect Solutions, it was actually upto 12.10.2007. In any case the allocation of PPF number lends authenticity to the claim made by respondent no. 6 The work experience has been found to be more than one year. The allegations made by the appellant that there was a criminal case registered against her has also found to be made without any substance. Therefore, we find no merit in the aforesaid contentions of the appellant. 8. The last argument raised on behalf of the appellant- petitioner is that income of her husband amounting to Rs. 2.10 lacs has not been reckoned for the purposes of allocating her marks. Even that argument lacks substance because in her application, she has only stated her income as Rs. 2.03 lacs and the Screening Committee could have considered that income only which was mentioned in the application form. The advertisement LPA No. 1098 of 2011 9 clearly stipulates that evaluation on parameters (a) to (d) was to be made on the basis of information given in the application. Accordingly 2.3 marks were rightly awarded to the appellant by the Screening Committee i.e. 0.1 for every unit of Rs. 10,000/-. 9. No other argument has been advanced. 10. For the reasons afore-mentioned this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 4.7 .2011 Judge okg