CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2620 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2620 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 27, 2011 Smt. Anuradha Saini ..Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who was an applicant for allotment of LPG Distributorship and had unsuccessfully participated in the se- lection process, has challenged the same through present writ peti- tion. The primary grievance raised by the petitioner is in allocation of marks and the evaluation done in this case in the field of capacity to provide infrastructure. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has made reference to various documents to point -1- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2620 of 2010 out to certain anomalous position where there is variations in the pa- rameters to assess candidates having lease in their name and in the name of their relative. The variation is in the brochure vis-a-vis the advertisement. The petitioner has made an attempt to build a case that the selected candidate was wrongly evaluated and given 25 marks in the infrastructure, whereas according to the brochure she could have been given only 18 marks. Merely on account of some anomaly or so called anomaly or some variation in the advertisement and the brochure, it cannot be allowed to have unfair and absurd consequences. It will not be legally proper to hold that a person, who has lease in his or her own name, should get less marks than in cases of lease where the same is in the name of any of his family member. Even other- wise, the evaluation and the manner thereof ought to be left to the re- spondents as it is the decision making process, which is subject to judicial review and not the decision as such. I am, therefore, not in- clined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. May 27, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE -2-