IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1757 of 2004 Between: Modili Pydithalli … Petitioner And Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, Bombay & 3 others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D. Ramalinga Swamy Counsel for respondents 1-3: Sri B. Srinarayana for Sri M. Ravindranath This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1757 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the selection of respondent No.4 for retail outlet dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation at Kosta Ranastalam. The Retail Outlet (RO) dealership in question was reserved for physically handicapped persons. The petitioner, who claims to be handicapped to the extent of 60%, attended the interview along with respondent No.4 and another person. The interview was held on 12.01.2004. Respondent No.3 is one of the members of the interview committee. At the interview, all the candidates including the petitioner and respondent No.4 were escorted by their personal attendants. Following the interview and on the recommendations of the selection committee, respondent No.4 was selected and appointed as dealer by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the said decision of respondent Nos.1 and 2. At the hearing, Sri D. Ramalinga Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that of all the three candidates, who appeared in the interview, the petitioner has the highest percentage of physical disability, but ignoring the said fact, respondent No.1 selected respondent No.4 as the dealer. He, however, submitted that though specific allegations of mala fides have been raised against respondent No.3, no counter affidavit has been filed by him. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, counter affidavit has been filed by the Chief Regional Manager-Retail of Visakha Regional Office, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. It is inter alia stated in the counter affidavit that as per the guidelines in force, the persons, who apply under this category, should not only be handicapped, but also to satisfy such requirements as are prescribed in notification, that the Corporation after evaluating all the required criteria, selects the candidates, that it is not the degree of disability that alone is the sole criterion for selecting a candidate and that though the petitioner was called upon to produce proof of her financial capacity, she did not provide any information or proof other than what was originally submitted by her along with her application. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also denied the allegations of mala fides made against respondent No.3. At the hearing, the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 placed before this Court the comparative statement of performance of all the candidates interviewed by the committee on 12.01.2004. A perusal of the statement shows that respondent No.4 was given highest marks not only by respondent No.3, but also by the other two members against whom no allegations have been made. It can also be observed from the said statement that the pattern of awarding marks by all the three members of the interview committee was more or less similar in respect of all the three candidates. Except raising suspicion against respondent No.3, the petitioner failed to produce any concrete evidence to show that the former went out of his way to help respondent No.4. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 is either the relative of respondent No.4 or in any other manner connected with her. From the mere circumstance of respondent No.3 allegedly talking to the attendant of respondent No.4, it cannot be inferred that the former would have gone out of his way to help respondent No.4. Even though no counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3, as the allegations made by the petitioner are not supported by any material whatsoever, the absence of counter by respondent No.3 cannot automatically result in acceptance of the petitioner’s allegations. Moreover, as noted hereinabove, the pattern of awarding marks by all the three committee members being similar, there is no reason to suspect the bona fides of respondent No.3. Except pleading that the petitioner has the highest percentage of handicap, no regulation or guideline is placed before the Court to show that the percentage of handicap is only the criterion for selecting a dealer under the physically handicapped quota. Obviously, on the basis of several other factors such as financial capacity, knowledge etc., the relative merits of the candidates are evaluated. The record produced by respondent Nos.1 and 2 shows that the Corporation has selected and appointed respondent No.4, who was given the highest marks by the members of the interview committee. The evaluation of the comparative merit is ordinarily left to the experts and this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction seldom interferes with the experts’ decision. As respondent No.4 was found better than the petitioner and the other candidates, she has been selected and appointed as dealer. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.12.2009 ES