IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.1472 of 2002 Between: Dharavath Ramlal, S/o. Thavirya, R/o.Earlapudi (v), Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,(Divl.Office) GVR Towers, 3rd Floor, Bharatinagar Ring Road, Vijayawada-520 008. 2 Dealer Selection Board, Rep.by its Non-Member Secretary, Door No.5-527/2, Chennupati Complex, Near Ashoknagar Bus Stop, Ashoknagar Bandar Road, Vijayawada-520 007. 3 Ajeemera Deva Singh, S/o. Not Known to the Petitioner, Post Enugal Thurpu Thanda, Parvathagiri (M), Warangal Dist-506 122. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or direction, declaring the procs.dt. 23-11-2001 vide Ref.VJR/921 in granting the Letter of Intent for the Retail Outlet Dealershipat Chandrugonda in Khammam District as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to consequently direct the respondents to grant the Letter of Intent for theRetail Outlet Dealershipl at Chandrugonda in Khammam Dist pursuant to the Application No.411106 on the file of the 1st respondent, in favour of the petitioner; award costs and pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.V.SANJAY KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.1472 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioner questions the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent in Ref.No.VJR/921, dated 23-11-2001, in selecting the 3rd respondent as proposed retail outlet dealer at Chandrugonda in Khammam District under Scheduled Tribe category. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and he is an Engineering Graduate holding a degree in B.E. (Mechanical). Pursuant to an Advertisement issued by the 1st respondent calling for applications from the deserving candidates of Scheduled Tribe community, the petitioner filed an application on 24-01-2001 and he was called for an interview on 18-10-2001, but thereafter, there was no communication. Later on, the petitioner came to know by the impugned order that the 3rd respondent was selected as proposed retail outlet dealer at Chandrugonda in Khammam District. It is stated that his application was rejected on the ground that he possessed higher qualification than what is prescribed i.e., Matriculation and, therefore, the reason assigned for rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that he was over qualified is illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that the 3rd respondent is Matriculate whereas the petitioner is an Engineering graduate. A counter has been filed stating that assumption and presumption of the petitioner are that he was not selected on the ground that he possessed higher qualification than the minimum qualification prescribed is incorrect and untrue. In fact, the Selection Committee, which has been constituted under the chairmanship of a retired Judicial Officer along with other two members of the Board, who are high ranking officials from the Oil Corporations not being below the rank of Deputy General Manager/Chief Manager, scrutinized the applications and conducted the interview as per the guidelines issued for selection by the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India. In the instant case, basing on three heads, i.e., (a) Personality, Business Ability and Salesmanship; (c) Educational qualification and general level of intelligence and (e) General assessment, the selection has been made and the 3rd respondent was selected as the first candidate whereas the petitioner was selected as the third candidate in the merit list and, therefore, steps have been taken for finalizing the dealership in favour of the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the marks, which were allotted under three heads, have not been furnished in the counter and, therefore, it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent has got more marks. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as the selection process was over in the year 2001 itself, and as there is no Selection Board, the records are not available to furnish marks. It is not the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent got less marks than the petitioner, but his case is that his application was rejected only on the ground that he possessed more educational qualification than the 3rd respondent. The said averment has been denied by the respondents stating that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the 3rd respondent stood first, whereas the petitioner stood third in the merit list. In fact, the petitioner did not dispute the said averments made in the counter, which was filed in the year 2002, and no reply has been filed stating that the averments made in the counter are incorrect and unsustainable. But, however, learned counsel appearing for the respondents also placed reliance on a judgment of this court in Y.CHANDRAIAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[1] wherein the same criteria has been evolved for selection by the selection board and as the criteria was not at all questioned by the candidate, it was held that the said selection process cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 23-04-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BDLNM} [1] 1999 (6) ALD 89