IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3272 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEEBA.T., R/O.41/296, SREE DURGA, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD-678012. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, G-9 ALI YOVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI- 400051, MAHARASHTRA STATE. 2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE DIVISION, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI. 3. DISTRIBUTORSHIP SELECTION COMMITTEE THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. KERALA STATE DIVISION, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R2 SRI.V.J.ANAND FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 3272 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 26th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an applicant for award of L.P.G. distributorship by the 1st respondent. However, when marks were published, the petitioner did not get the distributorship. According to the petitioner, marks have not been properly awarded and if marks were properly awarded he would have been selected. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari, call for the records relating to Ext. P20 and quash it. ii) to declare that the marks awarded by the respondents are not in accordance with the criteria for awarding marks and declare that the discrimination made by the 3rd respondent selection committee for the purpose of avoiding the most eligible candidates for selection is arbitrary, illegal and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to consider Exts.P3 to P14 and award appropriate marks to the petitioner on the ground of capability to provide finance. iv) to direct the 3rd respondent to consider Exts.P15 to P18 and to grant appropriate marks to the petitioner as per her entitlement. v) direct respondents to grant appropriate marks to the petitioner on all heads stated in Ext. P20. vi) to direct the respondents not to finalize the selection till a decision is taken in the present writ petition.” 2. Learned standing counsel for the respondents points out that as per the guidelines applicable, against the award of marks, any applicant has a right to file an appeal before the Chief Area Manager within 30 days, which the petitioner has not done. Despite the same, the standing counsel submits that if the petitioner submits an appeal now, it would be duly considered. W.P.C. No. 3272/09 -: 2 :- 3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of tis writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner shall file a proper appeal with all documents in support of his case before the Chief Area Manager of the 1st respondent within two weeks from today. The same shall be considered and disposed of by the Chief Area Manager, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the appeal, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and other applicants. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.