IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15215 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR.RUGMINI BALASUBRAMANIAN, W/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 67, MAMAL, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 125. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE AT G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI 400 051 (INDIA) 2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED , DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR, PREMIER PARK INCHAKKAL BYEPASS ROAD, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 008 3. DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED , TRIVANDRUM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR, PREMIER PARK INCHAKKAL BYEPASS ROAD, VALLAKKADAVU P.O. 4. PRESIDENT, MARAYAMUTTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R.2,3 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R.2,3 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R.2,3 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R.2,3 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R.2,3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.15215 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the 4th respondent which is a co- operative society, were applicants for selection and appointment of dealership of retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation at Perumkadavila. After interview marks were awarded. Subsequently, apparently on a complaint made by the 4th respondent, marks were changed. This is under challenge before me. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that before changing the marks the petitioner was not heard. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “(i) To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling upon the records pertaining to Exts.P-9 and P-11 and quash the same. (ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as dealer of retail outlet at Perumkadavila in view of her top position in Ext.P7.” 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the procedure prescribed does not contemplate a hearing of parties. According to him, when a complaint is received from one of the applicants, that would be 2 sent for enquiry by an investigating officer who would look into the complaint and submit a report, based on which appropriate corrective measures would be taken. For this, there is no necessity to hear the parties, is the submission made. 3. I have heard both parties. 4. I am unable to agree with the Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. The procedure would have been alright in the original award of marks. But when after awarding marks and publishing the same, it is sought to be corrected, naturally the parties are entitled to be heard in the matter. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that respondents 1 to 3 should reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent before selecting one of them. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3