IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15928 of 2009 DEV KUMAR DUBEY, son of Shjri Diwakar Chandra Dubey, resident of Mohalla- New Bank Colony, Adampur, Police Station-Adampur, District- Bhagalpur (Bihar)…. Petitioner Versus 1. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman,17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-4000 20. 2. The Chairman, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-4000 20. 3. The Divisional General Manager, East Zone ,the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 10 Industries House, Carnak Street, Kolkata-01. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd./Patna, L.P.G. Region, 6th floor, Loknayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-01. 5. Shri Pushpendra Kumar Singh, son of not known, Chandralok Commercial Complex, Ghantaghar Chowk, Bhagalpur 812001 (Bihar). 6. Shri Ajit Kumar Dubey, son of Shri Ramesh Chandra Dubey, Budihya Kaali Asthan, Naya Chowk, Ishakchak, P.O., Mirzanhat, District Bhagalpur (Bihar). 7. Shri Madan Gopal, son of name not known, Prioprietor, Hero Honda Distributor, Near Bhagalpur GPO, Bhagalpur( Bihar). 8. The Members, Selection Committee, Regional Officer, The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. LPG Region, 6th Floor, Loknayak Jai Prakash bhawan, Patna.1. 9. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi. …………… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Bidyachal Singh,Advocate Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocate For respondent No.1: Dr. Pankaj, C.G.C. For respondent Nos.2 to 4: Mr.P.K. Jaipuriyar,Advocate Mr.Anshuman Jaipuriyar, Advocate For respondent No.5: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra. -------- 10. 23.9.2010 Heard learned counsels for the parties. A large number of reliefs have been prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition, but the sum and substance of the claim of the petitioner is that his Post Grduate Diploma in Management from the Institute of Rural Management, Anand ( in short “IRMA”)should have been considered as a Post Graduate in Management by the authorities of the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and he should have been awarded 15 marks for - 2 - educational qualification instead of 12 marks as has been done and accordingly, he be declared as the successful candidate for the allotment of distributorship of L.P.G. situated at Bhagalpur. The petitioner along with a number of other applicants including respondent Nos.5,6 and 7 applied against the advertisement for L.P.G. distributorship at Bhagalpur. After following the due procedures a select list was prepared in which the petitioner was awarded 12 marks for educational qualification and given a total marks of 95.8. Respondent Nos. 5,6 and 7 were placed at serial Nos. 1,2 and 3 of the panel having been awarded 98.7, 98.00 and 97.5 marks respectively out of 100 marks. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner has qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Management from the Institute of Rural Management, Anand. In the Brochure issued by the respondent Oil Company the allocation of marks for educational qualification by level 1 Committee based on the information/statement given in the application have been provided as under: Parameter Lev el Description Max Mar ks Evaluation Educational Qualification (as on date of application) not applicable to 1 i. Post Graduation in Management or Diploma in Management from Indian Institute of Management ii. Graduation in 15 Based on the information - 3 - non-individual entities Engineering/Law iii. Chartered Accountant. given in application II Post Graduation/Gradation/Profe ssional qualification in any other field not covered in para 1 above 12 III Matriculation 10 Based on the same, the petitioner was treated as falling in category II and having a professional qualification in any other field not covered in paragraph No.1 of the aforesaid allocation of marks provided in the Brochure and awarded 12 marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities have wrongly treated the petitioner as belonging to category-II, whereas the case of the petitioner was covered by category (i) of Level-I being Post Graduate in Management. In support of the aforesaid, he relies upon a letter dated September 7, 1993 issued by the Association of Indian Universities to the Director of I.R.M.A. in which it is stated that two years Post Graduate Programme in Rural Management of IRMA has been recognized as equivalent to Master Degree in Rural Management of Indian University and a Circulars is being issued to all the Universities accordingly. He also relies upon information - 4 - given out on the website of the Association of Indian Universities in which the names of the Institutions whose Post Graduate Diploma in Management has been equated with the M.B.A. degree are given, which include as many as 32 Institutions, including the Institute of Rural Management, Anand. A large number of other leading Institutions like the Indian Institute of Management, XLRI, Jamshedpur, etc. also form part of the said list. It is urged by learned counsel that the Association of the Indian Universities is a Nodal Agency for granting academic equivalence to the award of such degree. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management of IRMA is also recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that Clause (i) of Level-I of the parameter of educational qualification has to be read as a requirement for Post Graduate in Management or in the alternative a Diploma in Management from the Indian Institute of Management; so read the qualification of the petitioner would fall within the category of Post Graduate in Management as is evident from the certificates issued and the website of the Association of Indian Universities. The petitioner being evidently Post Graduate from IRMA, in that situation he - 5 - was entitled to have been given 15 marks and not 12 marks. Learned counsel also refers to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in which the earlier guidelines of evaluation of candidates under the parameter educational qualification issued on 24.12.2008 have been revised on 29.12.2008 and Post Graduation in Management and also Diploma in Management from Indian Institute of Management have been put under two separate categories and thus there is no ambiguity left at all in the matter. It is stated that the advertisement in the present case was issued on 19.1.2009 and thus the revision of guidelines issued on 29th December, 2008 would clearly apply. According to learned counsel, the Brochure which was referred to in the advertisement like the guidelines of 24.12.2008 did not separate in two categories Post Graduation in Management from Diploma in Management from Indian Institute of Management, but would also have to be read in the same manner on account of the use of the disjunctive „or‟ between the two and thus the letter dated 29.12.2008 merely clarifies what may be open to interpretation by the letter dated 24.12.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the educational qualification of Post Graduation in Management if so read as to exclude equivalent courses of Post Graduation provided by Institutions like IRMA, as - 6 - have been mentioned among 32 Institutions by the Association of Indian Universities on its Website, in that case the same would be arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and for the said reason also the qualification of the petitioner must be treated as Post Graduation in Management and the petitioner ought to have been allotted 15 marks for the same. Learned counsels for respondent Nos. 5 and the Oil Company, on the other hand, submit that the educational qualification referred to in the Brochure has to be read as a Post Graduate in Management, i.e., M.B.A. degree and only a Diploma in Management from Indian Institute of Management would be considered to be qualified for getting 15 marks and not a Diploma in Management from any other Institution. It is urged that the educational qualification issued by the Institute of Rural Management, IRMA is only a Post Graduate Diploma in Management and thus it can not be considered as Post Graduation in Management and rightly the petitioner has been granted 12 marks treating his qualification as a professional qualification in any other field. It is also urged by learned counsel for the respondents that the allocation of marks in terms of the Brochure accompanying the advertisement and any other subsidiary matter cannot be looked into including any - 7 - circular or revision or guidelines that may have been issued by the Central Government. From the same, it is evident that only such Institution which has Post Graduate degree in management that was granted by the University or Institution affiliated to Universities would be fit for being considered under the category Post Graduate in Management and 15 marks awarded for the same. On a consideration of the aforesaid submissions of learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that not much seems to depend upon the revision of guidelines as contained in the letter dated 24.12.2008 and the subsequent clarification by the letter dated 29.12.2008 both issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, so far as the present matter is concerned. In the letter dated 24.12.2008, which is in the same terms as in the Brochure referred to by the advertisement, the relevant qualification is given as “Post Graduation in Management or Diploma in Management from Indian Institute of Management”. In the subsequent letter dated 29.12.2008 they have been shown separately as two categories (i) Post Graduate in Management and (ii) Diploma in Management from Indian Institute of Management. In view of the presence of the disjunctive or between the two in the first revised guidelines dated 24.12.2008 and the corresponding Brochure referred to by the present advertisement, it is evident that the subsequent letter - 8 - dated 29.12.2008 merely puts in two separate categories what was already separate on account of the use of the disjunctive word „or‟. Thus no difference is made by the revised guidelines in the present matter. It is true that considering both the qualifications, it may be argued that since there is specific reference to Diploma in Management from Indian Institute of Management, hence the Diploma in Management issued by the other Institutions would disqualify and the first category of Post Graduate in Management would refer only to a degree.The same, however, cannot be countenanced either on the choice of word used or on the basis of rational principle. The word used is not Post Graduate Degree in Management rather it is simply Post Graduation in Management. This Court cannot permit the respondents to read into the Brochure what is not provided in the Brochure itself. Thus the qualification “Post Graduation in Management” will have to be held to include any such Post Graduate qualification in Management which is recognized by such bodies, which are competent to categorize the same. In the present matter, Post Graduate Diploma in Management from IRMA has been recognized as equivalent to MBA by the Association of Indian Universities, which is the competent Nodal Agency for recognizing such qualifications. That being the position, the petitioner‟s Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Management - 9 - from IRMA has to be considered as the educational qualification of Post Graduation in Management which makes him entitled to allotment of 15 marks in terms of the advertisement and accompanying Brochure. This Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that any other interpretation would fall foul of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and would be unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and whimsical. It is well known that the Institute of Rural Management, Anand is one of the leading Management Institutions in the Country and if the holder of qualification of Post Graduate Diploma from the said Institution is unfit to get 15 marks, whereas the Post Graduate degree holders from any of the Universities many of which are not even considered at par in terms of excellence, are to be given preference and awarded 15 marks while such a Post Graduation Diploma holder from IRMA would get only 12 marks then such arbitrary and unreasonable classification cannot withstand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence the qualification of Post Graduation in Management has to be read as Post Graduate Degree or Diploma in Management which is recognized as equivalent to MBA by the Association of Indian Universities or any such other competent body. Thus in the light of the aforesaid discussions, - 10 - the decision of the respondent-authorities to award only 12 marks to the petitioner for educational qualification has to be held as illegal and the same is quashed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to be awarded 15 marks against the head of educational qualification. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed and the authorities of the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation are directed to re-frame the list of empanelled candidates dated 30.7.2009 for H.P. Gas distributorship at the location Bhagalpur in accordance with the findings of this Court in the present writ petition and thereafter take all consequential steps accordingly. Any decision taken by the authorities on the basis of the aforesaid list of empanelled candidates is also quashed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )