CWP No.2250 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2250 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.08.2011 Ravinder Kumar son of Shri Shiv Lal Chauhan, resident of VPO Atterna, District Sonipat. ... Petitioner Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Gurgaon Regional Office, B-1/33, Sushant Lok III, Sector 57, Gurgaon through its Chief Regional Manager and another. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Arundeep Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** 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 challenges the letter of communication issued by the Chief Regional Manager directing a fresh selection to be made through re-interview in the matter of dealership selection for Hindustan Petroleum outlet. There were only two persons in the fray, namely the petitioner and the second respondent whose relative merits would have decided who was entitled to. Marks were assigned as per the guidelines on the basis of data CWP No.2250 of 2011 (O&M) [2] produced through the application and proved at the time of interview. On a result that was declared on 17.08.2010, the petitioner was adjudged to have scored more marks and found eligible for being allotted the dealership. It turned out that within 30 days namely on 10.09.2010, the second respondent had lodged a complaint that marks had not been properly allotted to him. The Chief Regional Manager appears to have undertaken reappraisal and on the basis of a decision on 06.12.2010, a re-interview was decided to be held and communicated to the parties through the impugned letter. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he had 79.15 marks while the second respondent had been adjudged as having secured only 74.65 marks. According to him, the petitioner had offered his own land for setting up the outlet while the second respondent had only a lease hold interest in the land and if he was seeking for a higher appraisal of marks for the lease hold land, the petitioner could not have been treated at par and still the marks which he would get could be more than the second respondent. The counsel appearing for the first respondent-Corporation would point out that the declaration of result is the first stage before issuing a letter of intent and as per the guidelines for selection, the offer of dealership would not be issued before 30 days from the date of publication of merit panel or till the disposal of complaint received with regard to the selection of that location. Since in this case, such a complaint had come through the second respondent, the impugned letter was issued for the guidelines also, provided for a post-selection scrutiny of the merit panel and the panel would be deemed to be final only after the post-selection scrutiny of marks by competent Senior Officer of the Corporation. The contention, therefore, is that the petitioner CWP No.2250 of 2011 (O&M) [3] had not yet obtained a vested right to come by means of a challenge in the writ petition. 3. The contention whether the second respondent could have the benefit of higher marks or if higher marks were to be given to the second respondent, the petitioner would have to be relatively appraised higher, would be a matter that could be considered only in such re-interview that was decided to be undertaken. A grievance/complaint reappraisal system which the guidelines envisage would make possible entertaining a complaint within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of result and before the issue of letter of intent. It is not yet at this stage that the petitioner could make a complaint by means of this writ petition. The writ petition is premature and is dismissed as such. 4. The first respondent will conduct a re-interview by communicating to both the parties a fresh date and take an appropriate appraisal on the relative merits of the candidates in the light of the guidelines already existing for such determination. 5. The writ petition is disposed of. ( K. KANNAN ) AUGUST 19, 2011 JUDGE Rajan