IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18171 of 2008 SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O KATE RAMESHWAR PD.AGRAWAL R/O R.N. DATTA ROAD, PO & PS-FORBESGANJ, DISTT- ARARIA-------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BHARAT BHAWAN 4 & 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE AREA MARKETING MANAGER, BPCL, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR ASHINA CHAMBER, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA 3. MR. ASHOK KUMAR, THE REGIONAL CO-ORDINATE, LPG EAST, EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BHARAT BHAWAN PLOT NO. 31 KIT SCHEME NO. 118 PRINCE CULAM MD. SAH ROAD GOLF GREEN KOLKATA-95 4. MR. MUKESH KUMAR THE TERRITORY MANAGER, BPCL RAIGANJ TERRITORY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PANISALAHAT RAIGANJ DISTT- UTTAR DINAJPUR (WB) 5. MR. RAMAN KUMAR THE COORDINTOR LPG TERRITORY BPCL RAIGANJ TERRITORY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PANISALAHAT RAIGANJ DISTT- UITTAR DINAJPUR (WB) 6. MR. ANUJ KUMAR S/O SRI PARMESHWAR PD. R/O MOH. BAHADURPUR, NEW RAMPUR ROAD, TOWN & DISTT- PATNA 7. CLS LTD. A COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 1A, SANKI SAH ROAD, HASTINGHS KOLKATA-22----RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. S.D. Sanjay,Advocate For the Respondent No.6: Mr. Neeraj Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. M. Prasad, Advocate. ------------ 7 5.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner was one of the applicants for appointment of LPG Distributor in the town of Forbesganj district of Araria. The advertisement in relation to this distributorship was under open category. There were many applicants which led to initiation of process of selection in terms of the guidelines laid down in this regard by the respondents Company Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking. Three persons came to be empanelled including this petitioner. Respondent no.6 Mr. Anuj Kumar figured at serial 1 of the said merit list and respondent no.7 CLS Ltd. figured at the second position. Petitioner was placed at the third position of the - 2 - merit list. The details of the marks under various categories granted to all the three candidates have been indicated by the petitioner himself in paragraph-20 of the writ application. Petitioner filed the present writ application alleging many a things about the manner in which the selection had been carried out including the award of marks given under various parameters. He alleged that he was intentionally given “0” mark in the category of experience whereas other two candidates have been given better marks only to defeat his claim. The maximum marks to be awarded under the head of experience is “4” and if the petitioner was granted some marks under this head the position would be different since there is narrow margin between the first candidate and him. Many a things have been alleged in the writ application not only against the Corporation but even one Mr. Raman Kumar, respondent no.5 who happens to be coordinator of LPG territory located at Raiganj in West Bengal. Looking at the allegation and some of the materials the Court wanted to have a deeper look into the selection process. The Court therefore directed learned counsel for the Corporation to produce the original record for verification. The original records were brought to the Court with regard to all the three candidates. The Court not only went through the records but even allowed the counsel for the petitioner to go through the record. From perusal of the chart indicated at paragraph 20 - 3 - of the writ application it is evident that all the three candidates had been awarded marks under various heads or parameters to the maximum possible. There is no discrimination in any other head except the column „experience‟. Respondent no.6 has been granted two marks, respondent no. 7 has been granted 2.5 marks and the petitioner “0” mark. On the face of it if the above fact is taken on the face value the allegation that the petitioner was deliberately granted “0” mark under the head of experience was an arguable piece of submission. But when it comes down to the actual examination of the record and the details which was furnished by all the candidates then there are reasons and material to support the decision of the Selection Committee. The Court is not willing to get swayed with the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent no.5 because whatever the status of respondent no.5 it is a fact that the selection process is carried out by a Committee of three persons who were nominated at random and it cannot be said that in the said selection respondent no.5 has any role. Even if what has been alleged against respondent no.5 is accepted to be true then the selection by itself will not become vitiated. Admitted position is that the petitioner is supposed to be a chartered accountant. He has requisite qualification and experience as chartered accountant. But from perusal of the application filed by him and the details furnished by him it is evident that the petitioner as a young student delved with the - 4 - family business of transport for the period 1983 to 85. That has been shown to be his exposure or experience in matter of business, trade and commerce. When it comes down to the declaration made by respondent nos. 6 and 7 as well as kind of business they do the Court must fairly record that the petitioner‟s experience of business with regard to transport is too remote in the past and that too he has not filed any document in support of the same, when the application was made. If by way of experience and exposure in business if the Court makes a comparative analysis then objectively the petitioner figures at the bottom of the list. The experience and exposure of the other candidates or private respondents is far more impressive and correct. There is no hostile bias against the petitioner as alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the misgivings have been created due to stone walling by the Corporation or some of its officials who did not provide information sought by him. With the original records, the pleadings and the materials having been compared by the Court, though the Court was not required to get into every aspect of it. The Court is satisfied with the fairness of selection. The Court carried out the exercise to satisfy its judicial conscious and to set to rest any misgivings. The Court is not satisfied that there is any wrong - 5 - doing in exercise of award of marks under the head of „experience‟. To that extent the selection by itself is neither tainted nor biased and therefore requires no interference. If the petitioner seriously feels that he has a water tight case against indiscretion committed by respondent no.5 he can bring all such materials to the notice of the higher officials, who in the interest of the reputation of the Company may be well advised to get it verified This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)