WP(C) 1691/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. P. Gogoi, le arned Central Govt. counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, Mr. A.K. Gupta, l earned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Mr. Gogoi, learned co unsel appearing for the respondent No.5. The petitioner by the present petition has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to reconsider the matter relating to the selection and a llotment of LPG Distributorship at Sapekhati, in the district of Sivasagar under Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and not to award the said distributorship in favour of the respondent No.5, contending inter alia that though total marks of 100 fixed, was distributed in different heads, to be allotted to the candidates, the marks to be awarded to the petitioner against fixed and other assets has not been allotted despite the fact that the petitioner has the fixed and other a ssets, valuation of which is more than Rs.15,00,000/-. It is also the contention of the petitioner that had the said 5 marks been allotted to her, she would hav e secured more marks than the respondent No.5 and in that case secured the highe st marks. Referring to the assessment sheet prepared by the committee constituted for the purpose of selection of candidates for appointment as distributor, the l earned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is evident from the said sheet, which has been annexed as Annexure-II to the writ petition, that against the fixed and other assets no mark was allotted to the petitioner though she is entitled to 5 marks. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the respond ent authorities may be directed to reconsider the entire matter and allot the ma rks as per the entitlement by each of the candidates and to prepare a fresh sele ct list for appointment as distributor. Refuting the submission as well as the contention of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, has submitted that un der the guideline issued for the purpose of awarding marks under different heads , maximum 5 marks was allotted under the heading fixed/other assets and maximu m of 18 marks for deposit in the savings bank accounts or in the form of fixed d eposit, both under the heading capability to provide finance . The learned coun sel referring to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition as well as th e records produced before this Court has submitted that the petitioner having di sclosed the bank deposit in the form of savings bank deposit to the tune of Rs.1 2.5 lakh, is entitled to 12.5 marks under the heading financially sound funds and 5 marks under the heading fixed and other assets , totaling 17.5, but the s aid mark being 17.5 was inadvertently mentioned in the column SBs/FDs in the m ark sheet prepared by the committee constituted for selection of candidates with out reflecting 5 marks secured by the petitioner for fixed/other assets . It ha s also been submitted that since under both heads, the petitioner is entitled to 17.5 marks only, there is no illegality in preparing the final result sheet bas ed on the total marks obtained by different candidates. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 supporting the arg uments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has also submitted that the petitioner earlier approached this Court in WP(C) No .1006/2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.03.2009, wherein also it w as noticed that the petitioner in all is entitled to 17.5 marks under the afores aid two heads. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner despite the obse rvation made in the said order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, has filed the present writ petition without claiming that she is entitled to 17.5 marks ag ainst the Saving Banks/Fixed Deposits as has been awarded to her, which in fac t includes the 5 marks to which she is entitled to under the heading fixed and other assets . It appears from the guideline issued for the purpose of selection of can didates that total 100 marks were distributed in different heads. Under the head ing capability to provide finance altogether 35 marks out of 100 was allotted, which was sub-divided in 4(four) heads, namely, (i) Financially sound funds - d eposit in the saving bank accounts as well as in the fixed deposit accounts, (ii ) Ability to arrange loan, (iii) Assets - fixed and other assets and (iv) Income . Under the heading financially sound-funds i.e. deposit in the saving bank an d in the fixed deposit accounts, maximum of 18 was allotted and against the head ing assets i.e. fixed and other assets, maximum of 5 marks was allotted. The records produced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation reveal that the petitioner declared the amount in fixed saving bank account to the tune of Rs.12.5 lakh. Based on the aforesaid guideline issued, t he petitioner, out of 18 marks, would be entitled to 12.5 (0.1 marks on every un it of Rs.10,000/-), under the heading financially sound funds - deposit in the saving bank and fixed deposit accounts and 5 marks under the heading assets - fixed and other assets , his fixed and other assets being more than Rs.15,00,000 /-. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to 17.5 marks in all in both the afor esaid two heads. The records further reveals that the said 17.5 marks is shown, in respect of the petitioner, under the head financially sound-funds i.e. sav ing bank and fixed deposits , which in fact includes 5 marks which she secured a gainst the head assets - fixed and other assets . The petitioner, for the reaso ns recorded above, cannot secure 17.5 marks under financially sound-funds i.e. saving banks/fixed deposits her disclosed saving bank deposit amount being Rs .12.5 lakh. It also appears from the order dated 13.03.2009 passed in WP(C) No.1006/ 2009 that the petitioner was given the liberty to approach this Court provided t he petitioner could show that she is entitled to 17.5 marks under the aforesaid head apart from 5 marks as aforesaid, which the petitioner could not demonstrate . The records produced, on the other hand, demonstrate otherwise. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and h ence the same is dismissed. It is needless to say that the interim order stands vacated on dismissal of the writ petition.