IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31193 of 2005(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THE SECRETARY, A.C.SAROJINI, THIRUNELLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., P.O.KATTIKULAM, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE BHARATH PETROLEUM CO-OPERATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE TERRITORY MANAGER, BHARATH PETROLEUM CO-OPERATION LTD.,KANNUR. 3. K.FIROZ HUSSAIN, C/O.E.K.ABDULLA HAJI, NARGEESE MANZIL, P.O.KOZHIYODU, KADADIRA VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. LILLY KUTTY, W/O.POSTER PHILIP THOMAS, OTTATHENGIL HOUSE, P.O. KATTIKULAM, THRISSILERI, MANANTHAVADI. R1 BY ADV. SRI. S.SUJIN,SC, BPCL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31193/2005 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 SERIES: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD AND POSTAL RECEIPTS. P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ALLOTMENT OF DEALERSHIP DTD. 21/08/05. P3: COPY OF THE BRIEF PROJECT PROFILE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE PROPERTY SKETCH PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE CHART OF MARKS ALLOTTED TO THE CANDIDATES BY THE INTERVIEW COMMITTEE. P6: COPY OF THE LEAF LET ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 1/11/04. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31193 OF 2005 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Co-operative society incorporated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 1st respondent had invited applications for appointment of a retail outlet dealer at Kattikullam in Wayanad District. Interview was conducted and from the counter affidavit it appears that, none had qualified. Again interview was held and petitioner and 3rd and 4th respondents appeared for the interview. In the interview, the 3rd respondent was appointed as the retail outlet dealer. It is challenging t selection and appointment, the writ petition is filed. 2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marks in the interview should have been awarded in terms of the guidelines, a copy of which is Ext.P6. It is stated that if marks were so awarded, the petitioner would have been rank No.1 as against rank No.2 as shown in Ext.P5. 3. However, from the counter affidavit, what is seen is that applications were invited under the fleet category with walk in interview as per the guidelines. It is stated that accordingly WPC No. 31193/05 :2 : interviews were held on 18.2.2005 and 3.8.2005 and marks were awarded in terms of the guidelines framed by the company on 28.4.2005. It is on that basis, marks were awarded in Ext.P5. 4. The guidelines now produced show that, total marks that should have been awarded was 100 as against 85 shown in Ext.P5. However, in Ext.P5, it is seen that while the petitioner secured 70 marks out of 85, 3rd respondent had secured 74.33 out of 85. Therefore, even if this marks are converted and quantified out of 100, the resultant position would have been that the 3rd respondent would still be having marks which are higher than that of the petitioner. In other words, even if it is assumed that marks should have been awarded adopting total marks applicable as 100, still the final outcome would not have been different. 5. In such circumstances, particularly having regard to the fact that the 3rd respondent has been awarded dealership way back in 2005, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter at this distance of time. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp