IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15491 of 2006 OBINATH HEMBRAM Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Mrigank Mauli and Mr.Vinay Krishna Tripathy For the respondent: Mr. Kali Das Chatterjee and Mr.Amlesh Kumar Verma 3. 13.8.2008 The petitioner is a member of notified Scheduled Tribe. The Indian Oil Corporation had advertised vacancy at Araria for selection of retail outlet of petroleum product. This advertisement was restricted to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner and eleven others applied. Finally they were evaluated. The petitioner was the first empanelled candidate. A letter of intent having been issued as no further step was being taken by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation, the petitioner approached this Court. The Indian Oil Corporation has filed a counter affidavit. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. In the counter affidavit the stand of the Indian Oil Corporation is that on scrutiny of the result given by the three members of Selection Committee, it was found by the Corporation that none of the twelve candidates secured the pass mark. The dispute arises from the said contention. Because of that fact being discovered, the entire selection process has been scrapped and the Corporation intends to re-advertise the same. The mark-sheets of the three members of the Selection Committee have been appended. Each one of them has awarded 35 marks which is minimum marks for capability to provide land and infrastructure facility. This was so done because Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe are not required to give or 2 provide either land or any infrastructure facility which is to be provided by and arranged by Indian Oil Corporation itself. Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that as per the guidelines of the Corporation these marks have to be excluded and from remaining marks the results have to be evaluated. It is then to be seen whether they attained minimum eligibility on the basis of remaining marks. Mr.Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel for the petitioner submits otherwise. He submits that the results have to be evaluated as a whole i.e. taking 35 marks given to all in respect of land and infrastructure facility and if that is done then the petitioner having secured sixty one out of hundred has qualified as the qualifying marks is 60. Mr. Chaterjee’s contention is that 35 marks for land which is given to all have to be excluded and evaluation has to be done from the balance 65 marks available. Sixty per cent of 65 marks would be 39 marks. Thus, he pointed out that if 35 marks as added by the Selection Committee is deducted then none of the candidates have secured even 30 marks what to talk of 39 marks. Thus, the entire panel fails to qualify. In order to appreciate, it is necessary to quote Clause 4.3.13.3 and the Clause dealing with land. In my view Clause 4.3.13.3 aforesaid is inappropriately worded. In fact it has to be divided into two independent clauses and has to be read as follows: “In case of other categories of candidates, the minimum qualifying marks will be 60%. In cases where the candidate secures “0” marks under the criteria “capability to arrange land/infrastructure”, the candidate must secure full 25 3 marks in the criteria “Capability to arrange finance”. The two clauses, thus read, it makes sense and that two parts of the said clauses are not inter related. It would thus be seen that minimum qualifying marks set at 60%. Now coming to the next clause dealing with land. This clause is clear and unambiguous. It says that evaluation would be done after excluding 35 marks for land in cases where land is not to be given that is on the basis of 65 remaining marks. The effect of joint reading of Clause 4.3.13.3 and clause dealing with land would be that on evaluation on the basis of balance 65 marks, the candidate must get minimum qualifying marks i.e. 60% of 65 marks that would be 39 marks. Thus, admittedly none of the candidates have secured minimum marks. Thus, in my view, none of the candidates were eligible and letter of intent as issued was thus wrongly issued. I may, at this stage, notices a further argument of the petitioner with reference to marks-sheet format as contained in the counter affidavit in annexure-A/2 wherein it is provided 35 marks would be awarded to each candidate under the category and it is only inter se seniority that would be determined on the basis of remaining marks. In my view, in view of 60% eligibility provided in the substantive part of the guidelines, only if candidates are eligible, the question of inter se seniority arises. Here, I would like to add that Corporation should have been more cautious and more prompt in acting specially in case of members of weaker sections of the society and should not have sat for such a long time to take a decision in the matter. It has taken over four years for Corporation to decide the matter. I may, at this stage, on further argument of the petitioner with 4 reference to mark-sheet format as contained in the counter affidavit in annexure-A/2 wherein it is provided 35% marks would be awarded to each candidate under this category and it is only inter se seniority that would be determined on the basis of remaining marks. In my view, in view of 60% eligibility provided in the balance part of the guidelines only if candidates are eligible the question of inter se seniority arises. This writ petition thus merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly. Md.S. (Navaniti Prasad Singh)