1 WP-9783-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srj WRIT PETITION NO.9783 OF 2009 Shri Suryakant S. Patil .. Petitioner V/s. Poonam B. Sulhyam & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure, for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Sale, for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.R.Page, for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM:- B.H.MARLAPALLE AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED:- 28th SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard Mr. Mankapure, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Sale, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Page, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2 The Respondent Nos.2 to 4 issued an advertisement, inviting applications from eligible candidates for the allotment of LPG Distributorship at Sangli-B, District Sangli on 6th September, 2007 and the present Petitioner and nine others had applied in response thereto. 2 WP-9783-09.sxw After scrutiny of the applications, oral interviews were held for all the applicants on 18th August, 2009 and on the very same day, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 published the merit lists. The first three candidates in the said merit list are as under:- (i) Ms. Poonam Bhupalsingh Sulhyam (Respondent No.1) (ii) Mr. Suryakant S. Patil (Petitioner) (iii) Ms. Mausami Kumbhajkor alias Aruna Neharkar. 3 Being dissatisfied with his name shown at No.2 in the merit lists, the Petitioner submitted a representation through his Advocate on 1st August, 2009 as was permissible under clause 21 of the brochure published by the Oil Company. He also submitted subsequent reminders dated 9.08.2009, 13.08.2009 and 05.08.2009 and so on. Like in the present Petition, it was contended by the Petitioner in his representation to the Oil Company that he was a graduate in Engineering (Electronics & Tele-comm) and had a better experience in marketing and had scored either equal or more marks than the Respondent No.1 under different heads like go-down, show room, bank a/cs, credit worthiness and educational qualifications etc., However, under the other heads like age, experience, business acumen which parameters were to be judged by the Committee of three members, the Petitioner was given less mark 3 WP-9783-09.sxw than the Respondent No.1 and this was unjustifiable. As a result of the Committees such unjustified assessment, the Petitioner's total score reached to 92.3% against the score of Respondent No.1 at 94.3%. On 9th September, 2009, the Oil Company under the signature of the Territory Manager (LPG) WAI, gave a detailed reply to the Petitioner’s Advocate Shri Uttam Nikam and dealt with other points raised by the Petitioner on the issue of evaluation for experience and business acumen etc., The reply given by the Oil Company reads as under:- "The evaluation for experience and business acumen was judged by a Committee consisting of 3 (three) persons based on personal interview of the candidate concerned. The evaluation and marks given thereon was not based on the certificates submitted by the candidates as alleged. While awarding the marks to the candidate called for interview, the committee takes due diligence in awarding the marks to the candidates based on the performance of the candidate concerned in the interview with all fairness, equity and just manner. Hence, it is unjustified to cast aspersions for not allocating the marks as per the expectations of your 4 WP-9783-09.sxw abovenamed client. Therefor, the grievance of your client is utterly unfounded, baseless and without any substance and hence denied." 4 Mr. Mankapure, the learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that under the column of age, Respondent No.1 was given four marks whereas the Petitioner was given only two marks and under the column of experience, the Respondent No.1 was given three marks and the Petitioner was given two marks. Similarly, under the heading of business ability, Respondent No.1 was given 3.5 marks as against two marks awarded to the Petitioner. These grievances are also dealt with by the Oil Company in its reply dated 9th September, 2009. The company admitted that as per the selection procedure, the candidate in the age of 26 to 46 are entitled for four marks but the age criteria of the candidates is counted /computed as on the date of advertisement dated i.e. on 6th September, 2007 and not on the date of interview i.e. on 17th July, 2009. Therefore, the candidates who completed the age of 25 years as on the date of advertisement including the Petitioner were not entitled for four marks and the marks given by the Committee to the Petitioner considering the age factor were correct and there was no bias or unfair 5 WP-9783-09.sxw attitude adopted by the Committee as alleged. 5 When this Petition came up for hearing for the first time on 30th November, 2009 while issuing notice to the Respondents, this Court had made it clear that if the Letter of Intent is issued to the Respondent No.1. and to proceed with the work, same would be subject to the final order in the Petition. We are informed that in July, 2010, an agreement came to be signed between one of the Company Officers and Respondent No.1 stated to be selected as a dealer pursuant to the merit list impugned in this Writ Petition. We are also informed that the Respondent No.1 has already put in operation the dealership for the last one month . 6 When the three members selection committee has conducted the interviews of 11 candidates and allotted marks under different heads, challenge to the allotment of the said marks by way of judicial review, ordinarily cannot be considered unless there is a strong case of malice or personal bias so made out. The material on record and the reply dated 9th September, 2009, as given to the Petitioner’s Advocate, do not indicate any substance in the allegations of bias or favoritism. Suitability of a candidate must be allowed to be judged by the Oil Company while awarding the dealership and when an agency is being allotted by the Oil 6 WP-9783-09.sxw Company which is a public sector undertaking, the selection must be left to the assessment of the members of the Committee. While dealing with a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge to the selection can be entertained on very limited grounds and it will not be open for us to sit in appeal over the decision of the selection committee in awarding marks to the candidates under different heads. 7 Hence, we are satisfied that the challenge raised in this Writ Petition to the selection of Respondent No.1 by the Oil Company is devoid of merits and this Petition must fail. 8 Writ Petition stands rejected. (U.D.SALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)