IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 736 of 2010 Date of decision July 26, 2011 Omlata ....... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate for Mr. Atul Nehra, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for respondent No.5. None for respondent Nos. 6 and 7. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the allotment of a petrol pump on an appraisal made on the various parameters set for awarding marks and picking the suitable candidate. The petitioner lost out in the race for allotment to respondent No.5. Learned counsel points out that in the manner of awarding of marks, the petitioner has been awarded towards land and infrastructure zero by the interview committee and for experience, zero again. This, according to the learned counsel, was wholly arbitrary and she ought to have been awarded the same marks at least of what has been awarded to the successful candidate. The counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 representing the Hindustan Petroleum states that the petitioner's plea had been accepted and the petitioner had been allowed 35 marks by the interview committee for land and infrastructure and 4 marks for experience and the tally will then be 90.69 (by the formula provided in the brochure), while the marks allotted to the fifth respondent was 92.40 and hence the petitioner cannot stake a better claim than fifth respondent to be awarded the dealership. Learned counsel for the petitioner mounts a second challenge to the manner of awarding of marks by pointing out that for business ability the petitioner has been assessed only 2 marks whereas Sarabjit Singh has been provided 2.8 marks. The manner of assessment by the interview committee could only be in some way subjective and it will be not a exercise for this Court to find out whether the petitioner could have been awarded higher marks than what were awarded to Sarabjit Singh. This Court can not assess 'business ability' and award marks. Even granted that petitioner must have been awarded the same marks for business ability as were awarded to a successful candidate, even then the tally would be short of marks of the successful candidate. I am not prepared to take an exercise of what should have been the marks awarded for business ability, which is not a ground alleged in the writ petition, if the substantive grievance in the petition had been squarely addressed. 2. The petition must fail and is dismissed accordingly. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 26, 2011 archana