HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition Nos.3571 & 4330 of 2007 Dated: February 12, 2008 W.P.No.3571 of 2007 Between: Karri Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Sanni Babu, Hindu, aged about 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o.N.T.R. Colony, Yallamanchili village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. … Petitioner And Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, II & III Floors, Naspur House, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, represented by its General Manager, and others. … Respondents W.P.No.4330 of 2007 Between: Kum. P.N.S. Vijaya Kumari, D/o. P. Panduranga Rao, aged 22 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.1/16, NTR Colony, Yelamanchili, Visakhapatnam District. … Petitioner And Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai, and others. … Respondents Common order: As the issue involved in these writ petitions is inter-connected, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P.No.3571 of 2007 is filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the third respondent, i.e. the Dealership Selection Committee, represented by its Chairman, in recommending the name of the fourth respondent to the second respondent, who in turn selected the fourth respondent as an Operator of Kisan Seva Kendra at Yallamanchili village, Visakhapatnam District, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. W.P.No.4330 of 2007 is filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., in issuing notification dated 17-11-2006 inviting applications for appointing an Operator of Kisan Seva Kendra at Yallamanchili village, by revoking earlier notifications dated 12-01-2006 and 02-02-2006 and appointing fourth respondent as an Operator, overlooking the petitioner, as illegal. 4. Facts that are necessary for disposal of writ petitions are as follows: The Indian Oil Corporation, through its Marketing Division, issued notification, inviting applications for appointing Operators in various locations under the Kisan Seva Kendra scheme (for short ‘KSK scheme’) in Visakhapatnam District. Initially, advertisement was issued on 12-01-2006. However, as some locations were omitted mistakenly, another notification, by way of corrigendum, was issued on 02-02- 2006. The main objective behind establishment of such kendras/centers is to supply diesel, lubricating oils and other facilities, which are required for agriculture, at the doorstep of the farmers. The said centers would be developed as per the Scheme notified and development is done jointly by the Corporation as well as the Operators. As per the notifications dated 12-01-2006 and 02-02-2006, Yellamanchili is one of the locations for which applications were invited for appointing Operators. Pursuant to the said notifications, petitioner as well as the fourth respondent in W.P.No.4330 of 2007 have applied to consider their claim for appointing them as Operators. Both of them were issued call letters to appear for interview before the Selection Committee appointed in this regard on 02-06-2006. On the said date, petitioner in W.P.No.4330 of 2007 appeared for interview, whereas the fourth respondent therein, got issued a fax message expressing inconvenience to attend the interview on the said date since he was participating in bids for grant of licence for liquor shops and requested to fix another date for interview. However, the Selection Committee proceeded with the interviews on 02-06-2006 and interviewed the petitioner, but made no appointments. On the ground that the petitioner did not secure minimum marks, i.e. 60 per cent, as per the separate guidelines issued for appointment of Operators under the KSK Scheme, fresh notification was issued on 17-11-2006. Pursuant to the said notification, fourth respondent in W.P.No.4330 of 2007 as well as the petitioner in W.P.No.3571 of 2007 have applied. It is relevant to state that the advertisement categorically stated that Kisan Seva Kendras would be established in the notified locations or surrounding areas. Pursuant to the notification dated 17-11-2006, the duly constituted Selection Committee interviewed the eligible applicants, i.e. the fourth respondent in W.P.No.4330 of 2007 and the petitioner in W.P.No.3571 of 2007, on 23-01-2007 and the fourth respondent in W.P.No.4330 of 2007 was declared as most meritorious. 5. In W.P.No.4330 of 2007, notification dated 17-11-2006 is questioned mainly on the ground that as much as the petitioner has appeared for interview pursuant to the first notification dated 12-01-2006 and its supplementary notification dated 02-02-2006 and was eligible for selection, another notification dated 17-11-2006 was issued without any valid reason. It is alleged that notification dated 17-11-2006 is a designed one and was issued only for the purpose of appointing the fourth respondent in W.P.No.4330 of 2007, in spite of the fact that the petitioner was eligible to be appointed as Operator, having attended the interview and fulfilled the eligibility criteria. 6. W.P.No.3571 of 2007 is filed mainly on the ground that though as per the notification dated 17-11-2006, applications were invited for appointing Operators in the area of Yellamanchili, the name of fourth respondent who has applied, showing his location as Yerravaram-25, which is a different Revenue village, was recommended for appointment as Operator. 7. The Indian Oil Corporation as well as the fourth respondent, who was selected, have filed counter affidavits. In the counter affidavits, it is stated that Kisan Seva Kendras are retail outlets that are designed to meet agricultural/rural requirements and for predominantly selling diesel for agricultural purposes along with petrol and such kendras/centers also offer other agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, tractor parts etc., so as to cater to the requirements of farmers at their doorstep. It is stated that the Corporation has issued advertisement dated 12-01-2006 inviting applications for appointment of Operators under the Scheme at various locations and as Yellamanchili was omitted mistakenly in the said notification, another notification, by way of corrigendum, was issued on 02-02-2006 including Yellamanchili of Visakhapatnam District along with other locations which had been overlooked at first instance. It is stated that pursuant to those notifications, petitioner in W.P.No.4330 of 2007 applied and appeared for interview on 02-02-2006, but, as she failed to secure minimum marks required for being empanelled, i.e. 60 percent; as such, the duly constituted Selection Committee declared ‘nil-panel’ in this regard. It is further stated that in view of nil panel with regard to the earlier notifications, the Corporation was constrained to re- advertise the location of Yellamanchili and accordingly issued notification dated 17-11-2006. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that, in the notification, it is categorically stated that Kisan Seva Kendras would be established in the notified locations or surrounding areas. While denying the allegation of the petitioner that re-advertisement was issued at the behest of the fourth respondent, it is stated that the duly constituted Selection Committee interviewed eligible candidates, who appeared pursuant to the notification dated 17-11-2006 and upon their objective assessment under the prescribed parameters of selection, declared fourth respondent to be most meritorious. 8. I have heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.4330 of 2007, Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.3571 of 2007, Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Indian Oil Corporation and Sri M.S. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 9. In view of the rival contentions and the pleadings on record, the issues that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are: i) Whether the Indian Oil Corporation was justified in issuing notification dated 17-11-2006 for appointing Operators under the KSK Scheme for Yellamanchili location? ii) Whether the selection of the fourth respondent is in conformity with the notified conditions? 10. It is not in dispute that, at first instance, notification dated 12-01-2006 was issued. However, it appears that though several other locations were notified in the said notification, Yellamanchili was omitted mistakenly and hence another notification dated 02-02-2006 was issued, including Yellamanchili and some other locations, which had been overlooked, as a supplement to the first notification. A perusal of those two notifications would make it clear that applications were invited for appointment of Operators in Yellamanchili or any other surrounding places to the notified locations. Pursuant to the notifications, petitioner in W.P.No.4330 of 2007 and the fourth respondent had responded, however petitioner alone appeared for interview on 02-06-2006, before the duly constituted Selection Committee. Whereas it is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.4330 of 2007 that though she is eligible and qualified, having attended the interview on the aforesaid date, notification dated 17-11-2006 was issued only at the behest of the fourth respondent as he did not attend the interview on 02-06-2006, but, however, respondents in their counter affidavit categorically stated that the petitioner was interviewed on 02-06-2006 and as she could not secure minimum marks, i.e. 60 per cent, as per the eligibility criteria notified, the re-notification dated 17-11-2006 was issued inviting applications for appointment of Operators. 11. Though it is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.4330 of 2007 that as she was the lone candidate who attended the interview, the respondents ought to have appointed her, but, however, it is to be seen that merely because she attended the interview, that will not confer any right on her, for claiming appointment as an Operator. As she was one of the applicants who were called for the interview, she had an opportunity for being considered, but she had no right for being appointed merely because she alone attended the interview and the other applicant did not. If only one candidate attends an interview and does not fulfill the eligibility criteria, it is always open for the notifying authority to issue fresh notification inviting applications. In this case, petitioner in W.P.No.4330 of 2007 could not secure minimum marks, i.e. 60 per cent and the same has led to issuance of fresh notification. Though learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.4330 of 2007 submits that petitioner was not informed about her disqualification for not securing minimum marks, however, he did not place any material to show that a practice of informing the candidates exists, in the guidelines, to the effect that information has to be given to the candidates who are not selected in the interview. The said alleged lapse, cannot by itself, constitute reason to declare the notification dated 17-11-2006 as illegal. Though learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.3571 of 2007 submits that as much as Yellamanchili was notified, the fourth respondent, who has sown his location as Yerravaram-25, could not have been appointed pursuant to the notification dated 17-11-2006, but, however, it is to be seen that in the very notification, it is stated that Operator will be appointed at the notified locations or in the surrounding areas. In that view of the matter, the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, the fourth respondent, in his counter affidavit, has stated that Yellamanchili and Yerravaram-25 are adjacent villages and most of the Government offices, including the court of Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, is located at Yerravaram- 25. As much as the notification itself speaks, that Operators will be appointed from Yellamanchili village or surrounding areas, it cannot be said that the selection of the fourth respondent is illegal. 12. Though Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.3571 of 2007 submits that though the petitioner in the said writ petition is more meritorious than the fourth respondent, who was selected as Operator, but, however, there is no factual foundation for the submission of the learned counsel in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Further The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of K. Vinod Kumar V. S. Palanisamy and others[1], while dealing with appointment of LPG distributors, held as follows: “The law is settled that over proceedings and decisions taken in administrative matters, the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision making process and does not extend to the merits of the decision taken. No infirmity is pointed out in the proceedings of the Selection Board which may have the effect of vitiating the selection process.” 13. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. February 12, 2008 MRR [1] 2003 (6) Supreme 471