LPA No. 1340 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) LPA No. 1340 of 2011 (O&M) Rahul Dhull and another ...Appellants Versus Indian Oil Corporation and others ...Respondents (2) LPA No. 1429 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 25, 2011 M/s Indian Oil Corporation ...Appellant Versus Pushvinderjit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. DPS Patwalia, Advocate, for the appellant (in LPA No. 1340 of 2011) and for respondents No. 2 and 3 in LPA No. 1429 of 2011. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for the Indian Oil Corporation in both the appeals. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for respondent No.2 (in LPA No. 1340 of 2011) and for respondent No.1 (in LPA No. 1429 of 2011) 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? GURDEV SINGH, J. The above noted LPAs under Clause X of the Letters Patent have been preferred against the common judgment dated 12.7.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by Pushvinderjit Singh –respondent/petitioner, and consequently quashing the allotment of LPG Distributorship in favour of Rahul Dhull and Vikram Nain— appellants. LPA No. 1340 of 2011 2 The facts, in brief, are that an advertisement was got published by the Indian Oil Corporation (for brevity—'the Corporation'), on 18.9.2006, inviting applications for appointing Indane (LPG) Distributors under various categories at different locations, including Zirakpur, specified in the said advertisement. In pursuance of that advertisement, the writ petitioner, Rahul Dhulll and Vikram Nain, appellants, also submitted their applications. They were called for interview and appeared before the Selection Committee. The merit panel was declared by the Corporation. The said appellants were shown to have obtained 98.63 marks, whereas the writ petitioner was shown to have secured 96.73 marks. As such the appellants were placed above him. The writ petitioner was allocated 12 marks for educational qualification, whereas the appellants were allocated 15 marks. In the brochure issued by the Corporation, the allocation of marks under educational qualification head, was as under:- Educational qualification Basic Matriculate/SSC/Xth pass XIIth pass Graduate/ Post Graduate or higher education. 7 8 10 12 Based on documentary evidence furnishing certificate/mark sheet from Board/University Additional qualification any Diplome/Degree Basic Qualific ation Marks+ 1 Based on documentary evidence by furnishing certificate/mark sheet from recognized institution. Professio nal Technical/Law/Medic al/Management Graduate/Chartered/ Cost Accountant or higher qualification (BE, B. Tech. MBA CA or equivalent, minimum 4 yrs post 15 Sub Total maximum marks 15 In the writ petition, the writ petitioner raised the plea that he LPA No. 1340 of 2011 3 possessed the degree of B. Pharmacy and M. Pharmacy, which is a technical educational qualification and, as such, he should have been allotted 15 marks and has been illegally allotted 12 marks only under the guise that he possessed only a post-graduate degree. As per, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), the qualification of B. Pharmacy and M. Pharmacy is a technical educational qualification. Merely because B. Pharmacy degree at the time when he passed out was of three academic years would not change the nature of the degree being technical, moreso, when he also obtained M. Pharmacy degree. The stand taken by the Corporation that three years degree course cannot be considered technical education is without any basis. The M.Pharmacy degree is of five years post 12th. In view of that technical educational qualification, he should have been allotted 15 marks under the heading 'educational qualification'. The Corporation in its written statement justified its stand of allotting 12 marks to the writ petitioner on the ground that the degree possessed by him does not amount to professional degree. According to it, the qualification, which have been taken as professional are “Technical/Law/Medical/Management Graduate/Chartered/Cost Accountant or higher qualifications (BE, B.Tech., MBA, CA or equivalent, minimum 4 years post 12th”. The writ petitioner had done three years degree course in B.Pharmacy in the year 1986 and M. Pharmacy in 1988 and was rightly awarded 12 marks. The writ petitioner had no locus standi to file the writ petition, as the courts are not to hear the appeals against the decision of the Selection Committee to scrutinize the merits of the candidates. There cannot be judicial review by the courts regarding awarding of marks by the Selection Board in the interview. LPA No. 1340 of 2011 4 The other appellants pleaded in the written statement that the writ petitioner has raised disputed question of facts which cannot be gone into while exercising the writ jurisdiction. The marks were correctly awarded by the Selection Committee for educational qualification. The writ petitioner did not possess the educational qualification, as per the criteria laid down in the brochure, so as to claim 15 marks. The educational qualification possessed by him is not a professional qualification. That qualification was possessed by him after matriculation, which does not fulfill the norm for getting 15 marks. He was rightly awarded 12 marks. After having gone into the records and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the learned Single Judge returned a finding that post- graduate course in Pharmacy is a technical education in professional course and the writ petitioner was bound to have been awarded 15 marks and selected a candidate, if he was otherwise not disqualified. Accordingly, the selection made by the Corporation was quashed and the candidature of the petitioner was directed to be re-considered afresh and selection was ordered to be finalized in accordance with the law. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the educational qualification possessed by the writ petitioner cannot be said to be a professional qualification, though it may be termed as technical educational qualification. As per the information contained in the brochure, 12 marks were to be awarded for post-graduate degree and the same was done in the case of the petitioner. 15 marks were to be awarded for possessing professional educational qualification. The writ petitioner did not possess any such educational qualification, as described in the brochure. LPA No. 1340 of 2011 5 The B. Pharmacy done by him was of three years duration and is not mentioned as one of the professional educational qualifications. Therefore, the Selection Committee did no wrong while awarding 12 marks and not 15 under the heading 'educational qualification'. The learned Single Judge erred while recording a finding that he was entitled to be awarded 15 marks. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after B.Pharmacy, the writ petitioner also did M.Pharmacy. The B.Pharmacy was three years course, whereas M. Pharmacy was two years course. Thus, in fact, he did five years course after 12th. As per the AICTE, these degrees are technical educational degrees and it has also been so stated by the Panjab University in the information obtained by the writ petitioner under the Right to Information Act. This educational qualification squarely falls under the terms 'professional degree' as described in the brochure and, as such, it was correctly held by the learned Single Judge that 15 marks should have been awarded to the writ petitioner. There is no denial of the fact that as per AICTE, B.Pharmacy and M.Pharmacy are technical educational qualification. However, in order to become entitled to 15 marks in the educational qualification, it was must that the said technical educational qualification was professional also. A perusal of the above re-produced table, makes it clear that the degree of B. Pharmacy or M.Pharmacy are not professional educational qualification. No doubt, equivalent qualification is to fall under the terms 'professional', provided, it was of minimum duration of four years post 12th. The learned Single Judge failed to take cognizance of the fact that in the application form submitted by the writ petitioner (Annexure P/2), he mentioned that he LPA No. 1340 of 2011 6 did B. Pharmacy course after doing 10th. That B. Pharmacy course was of three years duration and the M. Pharmacy course was of two years duration. In his case, it cannot be said that it was four years duration post 12th. At the most, it can be said that it was five years course after 10th. Therefore, the Selection Committee rightly awarded 12 marks to the writ petitioner instead of 15 marks for possessing that educational qualification. It is also to be noticed that a person possessing a degree in Pharmacy cannot do practice on medical side, without getting himself registered as a medical practitioner. He can only dispense or could run a chemical shop. No fault can be found in the act of the Selection Committee by not treating the qualification possessed by the writ petitioner as professional qualification and not awarding him 15 marks and instead awarding 12 marks, on the ground that he was having post-graduate degree. In these circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeals are accepted. The order dated 12.7.2011 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE August 25, 2011 prem LPA No. 1340 of 2011 7