IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 6062 of 2006 Between: C.Ashoka Ratnam S/o.C.Nagaiah H.No.50/762-6, DEva nagar, Kurnool town and District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, 45-A, Sarojini Devi road, Post Box No.1511, Secunderabad-500003 2 General manager- Marketing and Co-ordinator, Chief Public Information Officer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd Bellard (District) ,Bharat Bhavan, 4&5, Currimbhoy Road, Mumbai-1 3 The Area Marketing manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, 45-A, Sarojini Devi Road, Post Box No.1511, Secunderabad- 500003 4 Raj Kumar Darivemula, ING Vysya Bank, Vijayawada R/o.Markapur Main Street, Prakasam District 5 B.Sateesh Babu S/o.Nageswara Rao H.No.26-28-142, 2nd lane, AT Agraharam Guntur-4 6 G.Sunkanna S/o.Sankar Peddatekur, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the selection of 4th respondent as dealer of BPCL retail out let (Petrol pump) at Kurnool LPG plant, Kurnool town and district, Andhra Pradesh null and void as it is not in accordance with terms and conditions and consequently declare me as a meritorious candidate eligible for appointment of said dealership. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. E.AYYAPU REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.6062 OF 2006 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the selection of the 4th respondent herein as a dealer of the retail outlet of Kurnool LPG Plant, Kurnool town as arbitrary and illegal and consequently declare the petitioner as a meritorious candidate eligible for appointment of the said dealership. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The 1st respondent – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited - issued a notification in the local dailies inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment of dealers for retail outlets in A.P. in various locations specified thereunder including Kurnool. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner as well as the fourth respondent applied and after completing the selection process the 4th respondent herein was selected by the selection committee. The said selection is assailed in this writ petition contending that the selection of the 4th respondent is not in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed for appointment of dealer. It is contended by the petitioner that the procedure adopted by the Corporation in awarding separate marks on the basis of the age of the candidates and production of affidavits for tied up volume without verification is arbitray, illegal and discriminatory. It is alleged that whereas the petitioner who had 24 years experience as an Agricultural Officer in Agriculture Department was awarded only 2.5 marks, the respondents 4 and 5 were awarded more marks without any basis. It is contended that awarding marks for experience itself is very vague. According to the petitioner, the marks ought to have been awarded for business experience on the basis of production of trade and business licenses. It is also contended that there is no nexus between the age of a candidate and activities of business offered by the 1st respondent Corporation and therefore awarding of marks on the basis of age of a candidate amounts to hostile discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the selection procedure itself was very vague and not on logical basis. After careful consideration of the entire material on record and after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, I do not find substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. At the outset, it is to be noted that in the notification published by the Corporation itself the procedure for evaluation of candidates was specifically mentioned as under : Evaluation of candidates Each candidate during the interview will be assessed by the Selection Committee broadly under the following parameters : (a) Capability to provide finance 25 marks (b) Educational Qualifications 15 marks (c) Capability to generate business 10 marks (d) Age 4 marks (e) Experience 4 marks (f) Business ability/acumen 5 marks (g) Personality 2 marks Total Marks 65 marks Admittedly, the same procedure was followed by the Selection Committee and marks were awarded accordingly. The petitioner who was very well aware of the said procedure and participated in the selection process without raising any objection, cannot challenge the selection of the 4th respondent after completion of the entire selection process on the ground that the selection process itself was vague and the evaluation of candidates was discriminatory. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Corporation, it is explained that a policy decision has been taken to award marks on the basis of age of the applicant as the Corporation felt that the candidates between the age of 26 to 46 years would be more efficient in improving the sales. All other allegations made by the petitioner have been denied and it is stated that the selection was made on the basis of the performance after verifying the documents that were produced by the candidates. Having regard to the details furnished in the counter-affidavit, I am unable to hold that the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent Corporation is illegal on any ground whatsoever. As expressed above, the criteria for awarding marks was specified in the notification itself and the petitioner was very well aware of the same at the time of submitting the application itself. Having submitted his application and participating in the selection process the petitioner is estopped by conduct from impugning the said procedure prescribed for evaluation of the candidates. Hence, the Writ Petition, which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.26.11.2008 gbs