1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.113 OF 2009 Nilesh Laxmikant Kudalkar ..Petitioner V/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & anr. ..Respondents Mr.Simil Purohit i/b.Mr.Ashok Purohit, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Gaurav Joshi i/b.RMG LAW ASSOCIATES, Advocate, for the respondent No.1 CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 17TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. . By filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision taken by respondent No.1 in connection with granting of Dealership of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mumbai-Division at Thane Belapur Road, Mahape (Turbhe), District Thane. The grievance of the petitioner is that initially the select list was prepared by the Committee and in that merit list the petitioner stood first. The said list is annexed at Exhibit “D” to the Writ Petition. Subsequently, 2 since various complaints were received against the earlier Selection, a fresh process of Selection was undertaken by the Corporation. The say of the petitioner is that in the subsequent selection he got “0” marks in connection with educational qualifications. In the earlier selection the petitioner was given “15” marks regarding educational qualifications. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the subsequent selection the petitioner has been given only “0” marks towards educational qualifications which is arbitrarily given. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is meritorious person and he should have been given dealership by the Corporation. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is required to be noted that in so far as earlier selection process is concerned, the same was cancelled by respondent No.1, in view of the complaints received, the petitioner thereafter, appeared before the subsequent Selection Committee. 3. In the Affidavit-in-reply, it is pointed out that the documents regarding educational qualifications of the petitioner were not attested 3 and therefore, he was awarded “0” marks in the subsequent selection. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even, if the petitioner was awarded “15” marks by the subsequent committee regarding educational qualifications then also he would have been much below in the select list. In our view, this Court cannot sit in appeal over a decision of the Selection Committee which is in our view not arbitrary in view of the serious complaints received by the Corporation. The petitioner having participated in the subsequent selection process though under protest cannot revert back to the earlier selection process. We do not find any irregularity in the selection process conducted by the Selection Committee. There is therefore absolutely no substance in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) (R.M.SAVANT, J.)