IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5818 of 2009 Date of decision:16.03.2010 Vishal Singh ....Petitioner versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Nehra, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for allotment of a petrol pump as a dealer. The complaint of the petitioner is that zero marks had been awarded to him for experience which sets out the different gradation as under:- Parameter Sub- Description Max. Evaluation heads marks Experience Business Retail trade of Petroleum products 4 Based on furnishing (Max. 4 experience Related petroleum trade/transport/ 3 of documentary marks) automobiles evidence, along with Hospitality/Service industry/FMCG 2 the application, to Other 1 establish the relevant service. Managerial/ supervisory experience of one year, as on date of application will qualify for full marks. No marks shall be given for Service/ Experience less than 1 year. Civil Writ Petition No.5818 of 2009 - 2 - The petitioner's contention is that along with his application, he had submitted documentary proof of the fact that IBP Company Limited had awarded RO dealership at Gurgaon City, Haryana and along with the letter of awarding of a dealership, he had also produced a letter subsequently issued on 1st November, 2006 where his letter of resignation had been accepted from the retail outlet dealership. These two documents, according to him, proved that the petitioner had 3 years experience in the capacity as a dealer and he was entitled to be awarded with 4 marks. 2. In response to this contention, the learned counsel appearing for the Oil Company would submit that this letter of communication from the IBP Company Limited appointing the petitioner as a dealer was not in itself proof of his actual experience, for the letter does not indicate when he had started the RO dealership and whether he had requisite experience of one year for being considered for award of marks. The learned counsel states that the documentary proof which is offered here before the Court, namely the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the IBP Company Limited alone would give the necessary proof and that had not been submitted along with the application. The learned counsel also points out that as per the terms of the advertisement any additional proof could not be considered at a later point of time, if it had not been submitted along with the application. 3. In my view, the fact that the agreement with IBP Company Limited filed as Annexure P-1 was not submitted, is irrelevant for a letter awarding him a dealership and the subsequent letter after 3 years Civil Writ Petition No.5818 of 2009 -3 - referring to the acceptance of resignation by IBP were sufficient proof of experience. The advertisement itself does not spell out in clear terms as to the nature of proof and it was perfectly legitimate that the petitioner assumed that the document that he had submitted was sufficient proof of the experience which he had to substantiate to be awarded with marks. 4. The petitioner shall be awarded 4 marks for experience and the 2nd respondent shall consider afresh amongst all the eligible candidates and take up a fresh decision within a period of 2 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. 5. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.03.2010 sanjeev