IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.874 of 2008 Ram Bahadur Singh, son of Jagat Malik Singh, resident of village – Patedhi, P.O. Ishrauli, P.S. Marhaura, District – Saran at Chapra ………… Appellant (Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12180 of 2006) Versus 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Indian Oil Bhawan, Nauahatta Road Besides Dhakuri Bridge, Kolkatta through its General Manager (Marketing), 2. The General Manager, Marketing, The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the Indian Oil Bhawan, Nauhatta Road, Besides Dhakuri Bridge, Kolkatta 3. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbunglow Road, Patna 4. The Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbunglow Road, Patna 5. The Indian Oil Corporation, Dealers Selection Committee through the Chairman, A Block, Maurya Lok Complex, 3rd Floor, Dakbunglow Road, Patna 6. The Chairman, Dealers Selection Committee , A Block, Maurya Lok Complex, 3rd Floor, Dakbunglow Road, Patna 7. Upendra Singh, son of Sri Thakur Singh, resident of village – Patedhi, P.O. Ishrauli, P.S. Marhaura, District – Saran at Chapra ………. Respondents. (Respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 12180 of 2006) ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate For the Respondents (Corporation): Mr. Kali Das Chatterji, Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocates --------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 14th November, 2008. The appellant, aggrieved by the award of Kisan Seva Kendra dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Patedhi, 2 Saran to respondent no. 7, in preference to him, approached this Court by filing writ petition which has been dismissed by the Single Judge on 26th September, 2008. It is from this order that the present appeal has been preferred. 2. The thrust of the submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the selection board discriminated in award of marks under diverse heads and that has vitiated the entire selection process. The counsel would submit that the appellant had shown his capacity and capability of bringing in liquid cash of Rupees twenty lacs as he had various deposits to that extent but he has been awarded 0 out of 12 marks. He also submitted that in respect of assets, although the awardee has been given 4 marks out of 4, the present appellant has been given 0.9 marks, which is unjustifiable. He would submit that although the appellant is an engineer, he has been awarded 9 marks out of 15 under the head, ‘educational qualification’ while respondent no. 7 has been awarded 10 marks although he is only a graduate. 3. We carefully considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant in the light of the norms fixed for evaluating candidates. Adverting to the head, ‘educational qualification’, first, it may be noticed immediately that as per the norms, the matriculate/SSC/Xth pass is to be given 7 marks, Graduate – 10 marks, Post graduate or higher qualifications – 12 marks. It further provides that for a candidate holding diploma, 1 marks shall be added to the basic qualification. 3 4. To our specific query as to whether the appellant was graduate in engineering or some diploma holder, the counsel for the appellant conceded that the appellant was diploma holder only. If that be so, as per norms, he could be awarded 9 marks only as he would get 8 marks for having passed XIIth and 1 mark will be added for holding diploma. Respondent no. 7 is admittedly a graduate and as per the norms, the graduate is entitled to 10 marks. This is exactly what has been awarded by the selection board. That shows that the selection board has been quite fair and has strictly adhered to the norms prescribed and, awarded the marks accordingly. 5. With regard to the marks awarded in the category of liquid cash and assets, except submission of the counsel, there is nothing available on record that the appellant possessed liquid cash of Rs.20,00,000/ (Rupees twenty lacs) as has been sought to be canvassed. More over, even if some marks are added to the appellant in different categories, in view of the difference of more than 6 marks, the appellant falls much short of the marks awarded to the respondent no. 7. 6. Letters Patent Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/