THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 26477 OF 2011 Date of Judgment: 14.11.2011 Between: Ms. K. Durga Bhavani …Petitioner and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 26477 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a widow and an ST candidate. She applied in response to an advertisement issued by the respondent-corporation for appointment as a dealer in rural retail outlet for location described at Sl.No. 204, Kukunoor village, Khammam district. The evaluation of marks awarded to her under evaluation parameters relating to capacity to provide land and infrastructure and ready availability of finance is questioned in this writ petition as arbitrary. The main contention raised and developed during the hearing by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the women candidates, particularly widows, unmarried women, above 40 years of age, without earning parents, applying for dealerships reserved for ‘women category’, scheduled caste/scheduled tribe persons applying under SC/ST reserved category and war widows will not be assessed under the parameters ‘capability to provide land and infrastructure/facilities and capability to arrange finance’ under clause 5 (b) of the notification. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that on these two parameters, the petitioner should have been awarded full marks i.e., 35 and 25 respectively, instead of zero marks, and thereby aggregating with other marks awarded to her, she would get more than minimum 50% of marks required for short listing. The petitioner states that while evaluating her candidature under other parameters, the respondent- corporation has awarded her 47 out of 120 marks and declared as not qualified and the said evaluation apparently is erroneous, as the respondent-corporation did not take into consideration the exemption available to her under clause 5 (b) of the notification, referred to above. The petitioner also stated that she had made a representation, dated 19.7.2011 for rectifying the said anomaly, but the respondent-corporation under their reply dated 28.7.2011 have justified their action by placing reliance upon clause (c) of the advertisement. That action is questioned in this writ petition. The respondent-corporation has filed a detailed counter. The counter-affidavit justifies the evaluation impugned on the ground that in Col. No. 7 of the notification it was specifically mentioned that BPCL expects the applicants to have/arrange suitable land for setting up of retail outlet. It is contended by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent- corporation that in view of the said indication mentioned in the advertisement coupled with clause (c) of the notification, the exemption claimed by the petitioner under clause 5 (b) of the notification does not apply. He also submits that the categorical reply to that extent was given to the petitioner, but dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has approached this court. It would be necessary to notice clause ( c ) of the notification on which reliance is placed by the respondent- corporation, it reads, “in respect of location against which ‘YES’ has been marked in Col. (7) above, the applicants, if selected, will also have to set up all the fixed facilities at their own cost in accordance with the requirements of BPCL on the land owned/arranged by them” The exemption under clause 5 (b) of the notification, therefore, has to be read harmoniously with the other conditions in the same notification. It is no doubt true that in Col. No. 7 of the notification whether BPCL expects the applicant to have/arrange suitable land for setting up of the retail outlet, it mentions ‘yes’ against item No. 204, Kukunoor for which the petitioner has applied. It would, therefore, mean and indicate that the respondent- corporation expects the applicant to have or arrange suitable land for setting up retail outlet. It is in that context the notification further clarifies under clause (c) extracted above that the requirement of providing land is not dispensed with for the location concerned. The petitioner, therefore, cannot place reliance only on clause 5 (b) of the notification to contend that notwithstanding the requirement in the same notification as above, she is still entitled to exemption under clause 5 (b). It is in that context that the reply of the respondent-corporation specifically states that clause 5 (b) has no application in respect of the present location. The terms of notification, therefore, squarely govern the situation and it is not as if that the petitioner is denied any preference or that the petitioner is given any discriminatory treatment in view of the fact that for the location concerned, the same conditions as prescribed are applicable to all the applicants. Even though the evaluation and the zero marks awarded to the petitioner against the said two parameters is not explained in the counter-affidavit, but the learned counsel for the respondent-corporation states that the evaluation would depend upon the accessibility of the location of the land and its suitability and a separate committee which selects the land will assess the feasibility of the land in all respects from the commercial point of view and in that view, even if no marks are awarded under the said two parameters, the same cannot be reassessed under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner’s contention that she is entitled to total marks under the said two parameters on the ground that she is not required to fulfill the said parameters, therefore, is clearly unjustified and has no basis. The writ petition is misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt.14.11.2011 KR