IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15856 of 2009 ***** Varun Kumar, son of Shri Ganesh Prasad, Resident of Pokhra Mohalla, Ram Jeevan Chowk, P.O., P.S. and Town Hajipur, District-Vaishali. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd through the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, LPG Division, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai. 2. The Director, Marketing, LPG Division, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai. 3. The General Manager, LPG Division, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai. 4. Deputy General Manager, LPG SBU (EZ), Industry House, 7th Floor, 10 Camac Street, Kolkata. 5. The Senior Regional Manager, Patna LPG Region, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhavan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna. 6. Sanjay Kumar (selected candidate no.1 for the Dinara site), son of Shri Ram Chandar Prasad, through the HPCL, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhavan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna. 7. Pawan Kumar Das, (selected candidate no.2 for the Dinara site), son of Subhas Ch. Das, through the HPCL, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhavan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent no.1 to 3: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate ---------- 2. 19.11.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. The primary reason for challenging the decision taken by the respondent Corporation in selection of candidates for appointment of LPG Distributorship is that there is variance in the marks granted to the candidates within weeks of the two interviews being held. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there cannot be variance in assessment when interviews are held one after another within a short span. This throws some doubt on the impartiality or the objectivity of the interview board which conducted the interview. Learned counsel representing the respondent HPCL submits that the petitioner raised all these points before the senior authorities in terms of the grievance redressal mechanism the issue was looked into and - 2 - the final opinion has been communicated to the petitioner by virtue of Anenxure-5. The reasons assigned in the said communication are rational, cogent and not arbitrary. In absence of any breach of any procedure being established the subjective opinion of the petitioner is not good enough for this Court to interfere. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)