IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 485 of 2009 Between: Kiran Thangellamudi, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Flat No.102, Sailaja Towers, Narasimha Reddy Nagar, Near Raghavendra Theatre, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vijayawada, LPG Regional Office, I.D.A. Kondapalli, Krishna District. 2 Ashok Bila, S/o. Vedaya Bila, R/o. Door No.5-88-6, Lakshmipuram, 3rd Lane, Guntur. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SREE RANGA RAO Counsel for respondent No.1: MR B.SRINARAYANA FOR MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for respondent No.2 : SMT B.KAVITHA YADAV The Court made the following : O R D E R: In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 07-01-2009 superceding the earlier merit list dated 06-10-2008. The petitioner and respondent No.2 applied for appointment of new LPG distributionship at Narsaraopet in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short “the Corporation”) and published in newspaper dated 01-10-2007. Another person by name Vijayaraju Katavarapu also applied for the said distributionship. Interviews were held by the selection committee constituted by the Corporation on 02-02-2008. Through proceedings dated 07-01-2009, issued by the Corporation, the petitioner came to know that his name was mentioned at Serial No.1 in the merit list, but on respondent No.2 approaching the Corporation, the order of merit was changed by showing respondent No.2 at Serial No.1 and the petitioner at Serial No.2. This action of the Corporation is questioned in this writ petition. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondents. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation, it is, inter alia, stated that initially a merit list was prepared by showing the petitioner at Serial No.1 with 26.67 marks and respondent No.2 was shown at Serial No.3 with 25.34 marks; that the merit list was based on the documents produced by the candidates and also their performance in the interview and that the same will be subject to the result of the field verification of the personal conduct of the candidate and also the result of the complaints to be made under clause 20 of the brochure issued by the Corporation. It is further stated that after preparation of the merit list, respondent No.2 made complaint dated 24-10-2008 under clause 20 of the brochure, wherein he brought to the notice of the Corporation that while the educational qualifications possessed by him entitle him to be awarded 15 marks, the selection committee awarded him only 13 marks; that the said complaint was investigated into by a two-member committee under grievance redressal mechanism and report dated 05-11-2008 was submitted by the said committee, wherein it was stated that a review of the application of respondent No.2 along with the documents showed that he was eligible to be given 15 marks under the educational qualifications as against 13 marks given by the selection committee. It is further stated that after following the procedure for changing the merit list, intimation was given to all the candidates including the petitioner. It is, therefore, stated that as respondent No.2 was found legitimately entitled to be given 15 marks, the additional marks were added and the merit list was changed and that even if a notice were given to the petitioner, there would not have been any change in the position and non-issuance of notice has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, he stated that when he downloaded the results from the website of the Corporation on 06-10-2008, he realized that the marks awarded to him were not in accordance with clause 14 of the brochure and therefore, he made a complaint as per the procedure prescribed in the brochure. He further stated that the grievance committee, after verification of the educational qualifications of respondent No.2, recommended for addition of 2 marks and accordingly, the Corporation has revised the merit list. At the hearing, Sri V.Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced two contentions, namely; that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before the merit list was changed and according to the procedure communicated by the Corporation in call letter dated 09-01-2008, non-production of original documents will disqualify the candidates. He referred to the complaint given by respondent No.2 to the Corporation to show that respondent No.2 produced only attested copy of the provisional law degree certificate, and submitted that no additional marks should have been awarded on the basis of such an attested copy. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that there was no need for the Corporation to issue a notice to the petitioner because changing of merit list was only a part of selection process. Mere empanelment of the petitioner did not create any indefeasible right in him and consequently no obligation was cast on the Corporation to issue a notice at that stage for changing the order of merit list. While the petitioner is certainly entitled to question the change of merit list, if the same is done arbitrarily or irrationally and contrary to law, he cannot certainly insist on issuance of a prior notice before changing the merit list. No such right is vested in him until he was appointed in pursuance of the merit list. At any rate, issuance of notice to the petitioner would not have changed the situation because, respondent No.2 was denied two marks for law degree qualification. Therefore, what the Corporation has done was only to add those two marks due to which the merit list has undergone a change with respondent No.2 getting more marks than the marks got by the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any merit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards the second contention, the complaint sent by respondent No.2 referred to his producing two documents in proof of his having law degree before the selection committee. They are attested copy of provisional law degree certificate and original of Bar Council enrolment certificate. He pleaded that the Bar Council would not enroll a person as an Advocate, unless he was a law graduate and that the very fact that he was enrolled as an Advocate, as evident from the original enrolment certificate produced by him, proves that he is a law graduate. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has placed before the Court the minutes of the grievance committee investigation team, which stated that respondent No.2 represented that he was not awarded appropriate marks under the head ‘educational qualifications’ for holding professional qualification in law. It is further stated in the report that on verification of the application, it was found that the applicant i.e., respondent No.2 has filled in the column at Serial No.9 showing that he possessed S.S.C, B.Sc., M.Sc., B.L and B.Ed degrees and that, in support of the said declaration, respondent No.2 attached all the certificates in proof of the said qualifications. On the strength of the said findings, the committee recommended awarding of 15 marks towards educational qualifications to respondent No.2 which will fetch him total marks of 27.34 as against 26.67 awarded to the petitioner. The Corporation considered the said report, accepted the same and accordingly revised the marks and the merit list. In my considered view, the Corporation has neither acted arbitrarily or irrationally nor committed any violation of law or the instructions contained in the brochure in revising the merit list. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 20-01-2009 is vacated. WPMP No.586 of 2009 and WVMP Nos.496 and 1712 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 24th June, 2009 vrn