IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.4798 of 2010 Between: Manchi Vidyasagar. …Petitioner And: The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Reptd., by its Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager, 8th floor, LIC Building, Jeevitha Bheema Road, Visakhapatnam and others. …Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J.Prabhakar. Counsel for the Respondents: Sri T.Srinivas for R.1 and R.2. None for R.3 and R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandaus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not selecting the petitioner as a dealer for running petrol retail outlet at Railway New Colony, Vizag City (Existing RO), under S.C. Category, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner is one among several applicants, including respondents 3 and 4, for the dealership of the abovementioned retail outlet. The petitioner was unsuccessful in the selection for the said dealership. The petitioner has claimed that he was awarded total marks of 35.17 out of 40, respondent No.3 was awarded 35.83 marks and respondent No.4 was awarded 35.66 marks. The petitioner has questioned awarding of marks mainly on two grounds, viz., that he was denied one mark under category ‘experience’; and that while awarding the marks for ‘personality’ he was given only one mark as against 1.5 marks given to respondents 3 and 4. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 sought to justify awarding of marks and submitted that except in the case of proven malafides or patent arbitrariness attributed to the respondent-Corporation or the dealership selection committee, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the selection process. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. With respect to the contention pertaining to marks awarded for ‘experience’, the brochure of respondent No.1-Corporation, containing guidelines for selection of dealers, reads as under: Experience (Max.4 marks for individual and non- individuals Business experience (i) For Individual Retail trade of Petroleum products: Related petroleum trade/ transport/automobiles: Hospitality/Service industry/ FMCG: Others (ii) For non-individual: Petroleum: Automobile/Transport service: Any sector other than mentioned above: 4 3 2 1 4 2 1 Based on furnishing of documentary evidence to establish relevant experience. Full marks for experience of 1 year and proportionately for experience of less than 1 year. In case of individual, experience of Retail trade of petroleum products will include experience of having worked as Manager in a Retail Outlet or COCO Contractor. The above guideline envisages that if a person has experience in retail trade of petroleum products, he will be awarded four marks. The guideline also provides for basis for evaluation in this regard. According to this, full marks for experience of one year and proportionately for experience of less than one year will be given, and, in case of individuals, experience in retail trade of petroleum products will include experience of having worked as Manager in a Retail Outlet or COCO contractor. Admittedly, the petitioner has not worked as a Manager, but he worked only as an Assistant Manger. Even the service certificate produced by him itself reveals the fact that he has worked as an Assistant Manager/Supervisor (sales) in Margadarsi Service Centre, Secunderabad. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, strenuously contended that as there was no post of Manager in the said service centre, the petitioner was designated as an Assistant Manager; and that, therefore, for all practical purposes, he acted as a Manager. He further submitted that the term ‘Manager’ would necessarily include Assistant Manager. I do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A proper understanding of the guideline referred to above would show that generally marks were meant for being given to persons, who had experience in retail trade of petroleum products, which necessary means that a person should have had involved himself in retail trade. However, this benefit is extended even to an employee engaged by such a retail trader, whose position was of Manager level. Had it been the intention of the respondent- Corporation to include the Assistant Manager also within the said term ‘Manager’, the guideline would have specifically stated so. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner, who was only an Assistant Manager/Supervisor (sales), does not fall within the expression of ‘Manager’ occurring in the said guideline. In strict sense, the petitioner would not have been entitled to even these three marks as he was never designated as a Manager. I do not, therefore, find merit in the first contention of the learned counsel. With regard to awarding of marks for ‘personality’, this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not embark upon examining the relative merits and demerits of the candidates and sit in appeal over the evaluation made by the competent authority. It is not possible for this Court to adjudicate whether the petitioner is entitled to the maximum of two marks under the head ‘personality’ or one mark as awarded by the selection committee. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the selection process undertaken by respondents 1 and 2. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:03-03-2010 MNR