IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31693 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- REENI MOL DANIEL, W/O.CHARLES PAULOSE, NARAKATHINKAL HOUSE, KANNICKAL.P.O, MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 589. BY ADVS. MR.VIJU ABRAHAM, MR.DOMINIC JOHNSON, MR.K.P.WILSON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER, TERRITORY OFFICE, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MANGALORE-575 011. 2. REJINI MOL.R, C/O.TERRITORY MANAGER, TERRITORY OFFICE, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MANGALORE-575 011. R1 BY MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV.MR.S.SUJIN, R2 BY ADV. MR.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.31693/2009-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LIST OF EMPANELLED CANDIDATES. EXT.P.3: BROCHURE PUBLISHED IN JUNE 2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE B.A. CERTIFICATE. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE B.ED. CERTIFICATE. EXT.P.6; COPY OF THE TRAINING CERTIFICATE. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE TRAINING CERTIFICATE. EXT.P.8: CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY A.R.D LICENSEE. EXT.P.9: CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER. EXT.P.10: REGISTER OF EMPLOYMENT. EXT.P.11: ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF A.R.D. EXT.P.12: NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P.13: NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P.14: COPY OF DRIVING LICENSE. EXT.P.15: COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.16: REPLY TO THE COMPLAINT DTD 22/09/09. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.31693 of 2009-F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner and the second respondent were competitors for being appointed as L.P.G.Distributor in the category of SC/ST for women. The learned senior counsel for the Company states that as of now, the selection procedure is not complete, in the sense that field verification and other attendant procedures are yet to be carried out. However, as of now, the challenge of the petitioner is confined to the lack of awarding marks in terms of Ext.P2 tabulation statement. 2.The petitioner is at Sl.No.3 and the second respondent is at Sl.No.4 in Ext.P2 list. Ext.P3 contains the criteria for awarding marks. It classifies the different qualifications and lays WPC31693/09 -: 2 :- down explicitly the marks to be awarded under different heads. Comparing that with the fact situation available, as on the last date fixed for submitting applications, the marks awarded for educational qualifications and age are beyond any doubt. The second respondent has not been granted any mark for experience. The petitioner's case is that she should have been granted more marks for experience. She has been granted 1 mark out of 4 marks for experience. She holds out Ext.P8, an employment certificate which says that she had been employed in the Ration Retail Outlet ARD No.105 at Puthedu since 1998. The said person is none other than the husband of the petitioner. Be that as it may, Ext.P9 certificate issued by the Taluk Supply Officer in 7/2009 shows that the petitioner was employed as a full time sales girl in ARD.105 from 1.2.2008, i.e., after the last date fixed for submission of applications which was 30.1.2008. Obviously, therefore, Ext.P9 was of no avail. With this, the controversy gets boiled down to the marks awarded for business WPC31693/09 -: 3 :- ability/acumen and also personality. Out of 5 marks for business ability/acumen, the petitioner has been awarded 2.33 marks and the second respondent 4.5 marks. For personality, the petitioner has been awarded 1.17 marks whereas the second respondent got 2 marks, the total earmarked for personality being 2 marks. 3.The petitioner's contention is that having regard to the growth of knowledge that she has apart from the qualifications which were reckoned for the purpose of putting the marks as against the qualifications, she has shown the business ability and acumen by making available consent letters for show room, go down and funds. I may immediately notice that such materials do not determine the qualification in terms of Ext.P3. Now, in so far as business ability/acumen and personality are concerned, they are among the parameters which fall for evaluation based on interview, going by clause 14.2 of Ext.P3. The assessment of business ability/acumen has to be WPC31693/09 -: 4 :- done on three identified subjects, management of people, management of finance and management of material and infrastructure - trade related. This has to be done by awarding marks based on response to specific situation related queries/questions on those three relevant subjects. Personality is assessed on the parameters of communication/articulation skills, polite, presentable and well mannered, enthusiasm /energetic/self confidence/convincing power. The evaluation of this is an assessment based on observation and leading questions, going by Ext.P3. In such an assessment which is evaluation based on interview, it is improper to attribute any arbitrariness, bias or malafides unless they are pleaded and proved in consonance with the well established standards calling for any judicial review of such matters. The evaluation committee consists of a Chairman and two members all of whom are senior officers of the establishment which is going to recruit the distributor. The management will, obviously, have WPC31693/09 -: 5 :- the intention to choose the best. That intention can be viewed with suspicion only on legitimate and well established grounds. Baring the plea that the marks awarded by themselves disclose arbitrariness, there is no material to show that the petitioner has, in any manner, demonstrated that the evaluations made in the personal interview are bad, at any rate, for interference by this Court in exercise of authority under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the aforesaid, this writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/0412