CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14629 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 25 ,2011 Uday Bhan (Sanwriya) .....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. K.K.Kahlon, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has impugned the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in allotting a non domestic LPG Distributor at Manesar in favour of respondent No.4. He has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.7.2009 (Annexure P-8) and order dated (30.7.2009) (Annexure P-10), besides the impanelled list dated 16.6.2009 and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14629 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: also the appointment letter dated 2.12.2009 (Annexure P-9) in favour of partnership firm-respondent No.4. The respondent-Corporation had issued advertisement in Punjab Kesri for appointment of non domestic LPG Distributors. The petitioner had downloaded the evaluation criteria for selection, which was available on the HPCL's website. The petitioner would also make reference to the guidelines in the information brochure for the selection of HP Gas Distributors, which was effective from the date of issue and was to cover all the advertisements. The grievance of the petitioner primarily appears to be two folds. As per the petitioner, the manner of interview was regulated by Para 13, which provided that a merit panel of three applicants will be made from the applicants, who will appear for the interview. The counsel would then refer to the manner of declaring the result as given in Para 15 of the brochure, Annexure P-5. As per the brochure, list was to be displayed on the notice board of the Interview Office and was to contain the names of candidates who have appeared for interview. If no suitable candidate was available, the Interview Committee was required to recommend for re- advertisement. It is also provided that a candidate had to get minimum 40% marks, excluding the marks awarded in inter-se priority after interview for being included in the merit panel. As per this provision, in case no candidate got 40% marks, then the location was to be re-advertised. The first submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that only the name and marks obtained by respondent No.4 were CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14629 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: displayed. The petitioner and other candidates, who were interviewed, were not reflected in the result so declared in violation of the requirement contained in the brochure. The counsel for the petitioner, after making reference to the result which was declared, would say that respondent No.4 did not obtain 40% marks, as can be seen from the result as she had only obtained 39.9% marks but still the allotment was made in her favour whereas it was required to be re-advertised. The counsel submits that this requirement was to ensure transparency. In response to notice, reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-Corporation. Mr.Anil Malhotra, Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, would point out to Annexure R3/1, which is a letter issued by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & National Gas on 18.9.2003, regulating the appointment of distributors for sale of non-domestic LPG in industrial/commercial sector. The counsel accordingly contends that separate norms were required to be formed for non domestic LPG Distributors. The counsel then would refer to the policy guidelines in this regard to highlight that requirement of obtaining 40% marks was not the criteria, which was essential for appointment of distributors for the sale of non domestic LPG. The counsel would also point out to the specific provision relating to preparation of a panel, which clearly provides that Selection committee will prepare a panel of three candidates in order of merit and that the name of only first impanelled candidate will be displayed and that of 2nd and 3rd candidates will be kept in sealed cover of the regional office. The counsel has, in his possession, the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14629 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: record ready for perusal, if so needed. The petitioner was impanelled at No.3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has also highlighted that respondent No.4 is a partnership concern and in Annexure P-6, the marks were given to two partners separately and total marks obtained by them were 89.49%. In any case, as per the respondent-Corporation, this requirement of 40% qualifying marks is not applicable in case of appointment of distributor of non-LPG Gas. To be fair to the counsel for the petitioner, he has made an attempt to show that criteria as contained in brochure, Annexure P-5, would be applicable. Except for baldly so stating, no material is pointed out to me to show that the selection was not to be governed by Annexure R3/1. Even otherwise, there would be no justification in interfering in the manner of selection in exercise of writ jurisdiction, if it is found that the selection has been done in a fair and reasonable manner. Merely because the panel of candidates as selected was not displayed, would not mean that the selection was not done in fair manner or that there was anything unfair in the procedure as was adopted. The respondent was a partnership concern, If each partner is expected to get 40% to qualify, then the requirement of minimum 40% marks would become 80%, if there are two partners. It would not sound logical. If a person has individually applied, such a condition even if otherwise applicable, may require consideration. Once it is shown that Annexure R3/1 would govern the evaluation, the requirement of 40% minimum marks could not be insisted upon for appointment of non domestic LPG Distributors. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14629 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. February 25,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE