THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.12281 of 2009 Date: 16.03.2011 Between : Tetala Krishna Reddy .… Petitioner and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Rep.by its Area Marketing Manager, Secunderabad and others. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.12281 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri Seetharam Chaparla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2-Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited and Sri B.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, and with the consent of all the counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner is an unsuccessful applicant for dealership to run a Retail Petroleum Outlet at Kakinada Town, East Godavari District. In response to the notification dated 3.2.2009 issued by the 1st respondent- Corporation for appointment of a dealer of Retail Petroleum Outlet at Kakinada Town, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent submitted their applications along with some other candidates. The 1st respondent-Corporation after following the guidelines, awarded dealership in favour of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the selection process insofar as it relates to awarding of marks to the petitioner vis-à-vis the 3rd respondent under the head “Capability to generate business/over all assessment”. 3. The procedure for awarding dealership is regulated by the guidelines dated 15.9.2008 issued by the 1st respondent-Corporation. The said guidelines prescribe identification of location, mode of selection of dealers, reservation of dealerships, eligibility criteria of the applicants and the process of evaluation of applications. Clause (4) of the said guidelines provides the eligibility criteria. Clauses (13) and (14) provide for evaluation of applicants and the details of the parameters for evaluating the applicants. Clause (16) provides that after completion of the interview for a location, result along with the detailed marks scored will be displayed on the notice board, displaying the details of the candidates, who appeared for the interview in descending order along with the details of marks scored by each candidate under various parameters. It also prescribes the minimum qualifying marks for any candidate to be eligible for consideration for award of dealership as 60% in respect open category, and 50% in the case of reserved categories. 4. There is no dispute that the application of the petitioner was processed in accordance with the prescribed procedure with reference to his eligibility as regards land and infrastructure, finance, education and age. The dispute is only with regard to awarding of marks with reference to the head “Capability to generate business”. Under this head, 10 marks are provided, which is sub-divided into 3 categories, namely (i) 5 marks towards tie up of sales volumes with prospective customers; (ii) 3 marks for Project report for realizing sales potential submitted by the applicant; and (iii) 2 marks on the over all judgment of candidate’s ability to generate business including future plans. The grievance of the petitioner is that the sub-divisions so made are irrational and overlapping. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, once marks are awarded under the head “Capability to generate business”, then for the very same purpose a candidate need not be assessed again by the interview committee. In that process, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner secured 5 marks for tie up volumes and 3 marks for project report, the petitioner was awarded only 0.50 marks for over all ability to generate business, while in respect of the same item, the 3rd respondent was boosted by awarding 2 marks under over all assessment. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the said process is irrational and the same resulted in the rejection of dealership to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation would submit that several components and requirements go into the process of ascertaining the capability of an applicant to generate the business and in the said process, tie up of sales volumes with prospective customers and the project report constitute the essential elements, which can be verified on the basis of the documents presented by an applicant, whereas the assessment of an applicant with reference to his capability to generate business would depend on the over all judgment and assessment made by the committee in the personal interview. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the personal interview provides necessary input to the committee to have a practical assessment about the capability of an applicant. The counsel would, therefore, submit that the process so evolved dividing the marks under different heads for personal assessment of the applicants is not irrational. 7. As mentioned above, the only grievance presented by the petitioner is with reference to awarding of marks under the head “Personal Assessment”. The assessment of an applicant, by nature and implication being subjective, depends on his performance. The interview committee has the advantage of interaction with the applicant to assess his capability. There are no parameters or any particular test that should be adopted by the committee to make such an assessment. The only thing that is required is that the entire process adopted for selection of a candidate should be fair and reasonable and there should not be any flaw in the decision making process. The actual evaluation and decision cannot be a matter of re-assessment by this Court. Therefore, when the committee has awarded only 0.50 marks to the petitioner and 2 marks to the 3rd respondent, such a decision cannot be faulted. 8. Based on the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the procedure adopted in evaluation at different levels by the Level-1 committee, Level-2 committee and Level-3 committee was, in fact, not within the knowledge of the petitioner, therefore, the entire process of evaluation by different committees is liable to be vitiated. The said contention is ex facie untenable as the entire procedure, including the 3-tier evaluation has been indicated in the guidelines itself. 9. In this connection, it is apt to refer Clause (13) of the guidelines, which reads as under: 13. Evaluation of Applicants: (i) The eligible applicants will be evaluated out of a total of 100 marks through a 3 tier process comprising the following steps: * The offered land will be evaluated as per laid down parameters by the ‘evaluation committee’ which will in turn decide the marks in respect of parameter “capability to provide land and infrastructure/facilities”, which carries a maximum mark of 35. * ‘Scrutinising committee’ will scrutinize the documents and allocate marks with regard to document based parameters out of a maximum of 56 marks. * ‘interview committee’ will carry out personal interview and award marks out of the remaining maximum 9 marks based on specified parameters and complete the selection process. (ii) The evaluation of eligible applicants will be carried out by the above committees based on the following broad parameters: Sr.No. Parameter Maximum Marks: Individuals (including partnerships) Maximum Marks: Non-Individual Entities a. Capability to provide land and infrastructure/facilities 35 35 b. Capability to provide finance 25 25 c. Educational qualifications 15 0 d. Capability to generate business 10 25 e. Age 4 4 f. Experience 4 4 g. Business ability / acumen 5 7 h. Personality 2 0 Total 100 100 From the said clause, it is evident that the evaluation itself was meant to be done at 3-tier level and the same was within the knowledge of the petitioner. 10. The selection, thus, challenged on the grounds as above; no other ground being urged, the selection process disclosing no infirmity, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 16.03.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.12281 of 2009 16.03.2011 (Msr)