IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12259 of 2009 Raj Keshwar Prasad, Son of Late Rugan Prasad, resident of Nehru Chowk, P.O. Chapra, District-Saran at Chapra, Proprietor M/S R.P. Gas Service ------------------ Petitioner Versus 1. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., having its East Zone Registered Office 6 Church Lane, Kolkata- 700001 through the General Manager. 2. The General Manager, ( East Zone) M/S Hindustran Petroleum Corporation Ltd., having its registered office,6 Church Lane, Kolkata-700001. 3. D.G.M.-LPG SBU, East Zone and duly constituted Attorney, Industry House, 7th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017 4. Senior Regional Manager, M/S. Hindustran Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Patna L.P.G. Region, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna -800001. 5. The Selection Committee, M/S Hindustran Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001 6. Sri Ramji Prasad Son of not known, C/o M/S Hindustran Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna- 800001 --------------------------- Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Advocates ------------- 2 05-10-2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Respondents. 2. The petitioner was an applicant for appointment as L.P.G. Dealer at Chapra pursuant to advertisement notice published in the “HINDUSTRAN” Newspaper dated 19.1.2009 , Annexure-7, and the Corrigendum dated 21.2.2009 , Annexure-8. Evaluation of his candidature and that of private Respondent no.6 is reflected in the - 2 - result sheet dated 17.6.2009, Annexure-11, wherefrom it appears that the petitioner secured 94.3 marks and private Respondent no.6 secured 95 marks. Counsel for the petitioner assails such grant of marks to the petitioner as also to private Respondent no.6 on the ground that on the earlier occasion when the grant of dealership was considered by the Selection Committee vide result-sheet, Annexure-4, prepared pursuant to interview held on 19th,20th & 21st March,2008, the petitioner secured 72.5 marks and private Respondent no.6 secured 91.5. as the petitioner secured 15 marks for education , 4 marks for experience , 4.5 marks for business ability and 2 marks for personality. But during the present evaluation petitioner is allowed 15 marks for education , 2.3 marks for experience , 2 marks for business ability and 1 mark for personality whereas private Respondent no.6 is allowed 12 marks for educational, 3 marks for experience , 4 marks for business ability and 2 marks for personality , although private respondent was not allowed such high marks for experience, business ability and personality on the earlier occasion. According to learned counsel for the petitioner , grant of higher marks to Respondent no.6 for experience, business ability and personality is wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.Aforesaid submission has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Brochure published by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ( hereinafter referred to as “ H.P.C.L.) in the year 2007 in course of arguments the learned counsel for the H.P.C.L. however placed before this Court the Brochure published by the H.P.C.L. in - 3 - January 2009 whereunder the criteria for allocation of marks under various parameters by L-1 Committee based on the information/ statement given in the application and Evaluation by L-2 Interview (Selection) Committee based on performance during interview is provided. The Educational qualification is to be considered in the light of the Post-Graduation in Management or Diploma in Management from Indian Institute of Management , Graduation in Engineering / Law Chartered Accountant for which 15 marks is allowed . For post Graduation/Graduation/Professional qualification in any other field not covered by above 12 marks is allowed. The Business Ability/ Acumen of the candidate is to be considered by the L-2 Committee on the basis of the response to the specific situation related queries on Management of People , Management of Finance , Management of material/ infrastructure and Trade. While considering the experience marks has to be awarded considering the quality rather than amount of experience. The quality of experience is to be judged on the basis of the response of the candidate to the questions related to experience in direct sale , home delivery of products, trade of petroleum products , hospitality/service industry etc. Personality of the candidate has to be assessed on the basis of the observations and answers given by him to the leading questions put to him by the L-2 Committee. 3. The L-2 Evaluation Committee having considered the performance /response of the petitioner and Respondent no.6 during interview in the light of the evaluation norms set out in the Brochure - 4 - published in January,2009 awarded them marks for business ability/acumen, Experience and personality. In the circumstances , this Court does not consider it appropriate to go into the correctness or otherwise of the marks granted by the L-2 Evaluation Committee based on the performance/response of the candidate. The submission that marks granted by the L-2 Committee under the result sheet dated 17.6.2009 , Annexure-11, should be reconsidered in the light of the marks granted earlier appears to be wholly misconceived as the marks on the two occasion has been granted on the basis of the performance/response of the petitioner and Respondent no.6 before the Evaluation Committee on two different occasions which has been considered by the Committee . This Court does not have the means to assess the performance/response of the petitioner and Respondent no.6 before the Evaluation Committee. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the evaluation process , the writ application is accordingly dismissed. A.F.R. NKS/- ( V.N.Sinha, J)