WP(C) 3382/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY This writ petition is directed against the Revised Merit Panel dated 8th June, 2000 prepared by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) containing the lis t of empanelled candidates for LPG Distributorship at Bordowa in the district of Nagaon under Open Category (Women). 2. A notice inviting applications for appointment of LPG Distributors of IO CL in various places in Assam including Bordowa in the district of Nagaon agains t the Open Category (Women) was published in a local English daily in its public ation dated 26th February, 2008, pursuant to which the writ petitioner and the r espondent No.4, apart from others, submitted their applications for appointment as LPG Distributor at Bordowa in the district of Nagaon. An interview was, ther eafter, conducted at Guwahati on 16th July, 2009, where the petitioner, the resp ondent No.4 and the other candidates appeared, on which date, a list of empanel candidates, in accordance with the marks secured, was published. The petitioner having secured 90.5 marks was placed at serial No.1 in the merit list. The res pondent No.4, who secured 89.8 marks, was placed at serial No.2 in the said meri t list. The respondent No.4 being not satisfied with the result of the intervie w filed a complaint on 27th July, 2009, in terms of the policy circulars issued laying down the procedure for handling the grievance/complain with regards to th e selection of dealers/ distributors, contending inter-alia that there has been an error in the marks awarded by the L-1 Committee vis-à-vis the documents submi tted by the respondent No.4. The General Manager, North Eastern Integrated Sta te Office of IOCL, Guwahati, pursuant to the said policy circular, nominated an Investigating Officer on 3rd February, 2010, who submitted the report on 29th Se ptember, 2010 recommending re-evaluation of the applications, which was approved by the General Manager on 1st October, 2010 and accordingly, nominated another 3 (three) Members L-1 Committee for re-evaluation of the applications filed by t he different applicants including the respondent No.4. The said L-1 Committee s ubmitted the revised evaluation report alongwith the justifications for change i n the marks awarded by earlier L1 Committee to the candidates including the resp ondent No.4. The Screening Committee thereafter, reviewed the reasons/justifica tions given by the L-1 Committee for change of the marks and having found that t he revised marks as awarded to the applicants by the second L-1 Committee are as per the guidelines issued for evaluation of candidates, accepted the same. Whil e the marks secured by the petitioner after re-evaluation remains same i.e. 90.5 , the marks secured by the respondent No.4 increased from 89.8 to 93. The final list of empanel candidates, by taking into account the marks awarded by the sec ond L-1 Committee and marks awarded by the L-2 Committee in the interview compon ent, was, thereafter, prepared and published on 8th June, 2011 placing the respo ndent No.4 at serial No.1 and the writ petitioner at serial No.2 of the merit li st and consequently declared the result. The petitioner has been informed about the Revised Merit Panel by the General Area Manager of Indian Oil Corporation L imited vide communication dated 20th June, 2011. Hence, the present petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also Mr. Bart hakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. 4. The petitioner has challenged the revised list of empanel candidates dat ed 8th June, 2011 on the ground of violation of the policy circulars dated 11th February, 2004 and 29th April, 2010 issued by the IOCL, on 2 (two) counts, namel y non adherence of the time limit fixed for disposal of the complaint and re-eva luation of the marks secured by different candidates by the second L-1 Committe e, constitution of which is different from the earlier L-1 Committee. Mr. Manna n, learned counsel referring to the policy circular dated 11th February, 2004, m ore particular, Clauses 3.4 and 5.0 has submitted that since the said policy cir cular fixes the time limit of 7 (seven) working days, extendable by not exceedin g 15 (fifteen) days in case of complicated complaints, for submission of report after making investigation by the Investigating Officer and 3(three) weeks from the date of receipt of the complain, for timely disposal of the complain receive d by the State Office, the authorities are bound to decide the complains within the time fixed and no decision on such complain can be taken after expiry of the time limit fixed for that purpose. According to the learned counsel, the respo ndent No.4, lodged the complain on 27th July, 2009 and the Investigating Officer submitted the report only on 29th September, 2010, though the General Manager, North Eastern Integrated State Office of IOCL nominated the Investigating Office r on 3rd February, 2010, i.e. more than 7 (seven) months from the date of nomina tion, thereby beyond the time limit fixed by Clause 3.4 of the policy circular d ated 11th February, 2004 for submission of report after investigation. It has a lso been submitted that the time frame envisaged in Clause 5.0 for deciding the complain within 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of the same has also be en violated, having re-evaluated the marks allotted by the earlier L-1 Committee on 6th May, 2011 and declaring the revised list of empanel candidates on 8th Ju ne, 2011, though the respondent No.4 lodged the complain on 27th July, 2009. Th e learned counsel, therefore, submits that there being infraction of the policy circulars relating to the time limit fixed for disposal of the complaint, the re vised list of empanel candidate is vitiated. 5. Referring to the guideline dated 29th April, 2010 for handling the griev ance/complain with regards to the selection of dealers/distributors issued by th e IOCL, more particularly Clause 2.2, it has also been submitted that the same L -1 Committee, which earlier allotted the marks to different candidates, is requi red to make the re-evaluation, as the guideline does not envisage such re-evalua tion by another L-1 Committee. It has been submitted that admittedly the consti tution of the second L-1 Committee being different from the constitution of the earlier L-1 Committee, the re-evaluation done by the second L-1 Committee and co nsequent revision of list of empanel candidates prepared and published on the ba sis of such re-evaluation is contrary to the guideline issued by the respondent IOCL. Mr. Mannan submits that since it is a case of re-evaluation of the marks allotted by a Committee, the same Committee consisting of the same members has t o do the exercise of re-evaluation, which cannot be done by a Committee consisti ng of different members, as has been done in the instant case. The learned coun sel, therefore, submits that the revised list of empanel candidates, therefore, requires to be interfered with on that count also. 6. Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent IOCL, par co ntra, has submitted that non-adhering to the time limit stipulated in the policy circulars for re-evaluation of the marks earlier awarded to various applicants, would not vitiate the re-evaluation and the decision taken by the authority on the basis of such re-evaluation as non-adherence of such time limit would not cr eate any right in favour of the writ petitioner. It has also been submitted that under the policy guideline, if there is any mistake in awarding the marks by th e L1 Committee, or the L1 Committee in awarding the marks did not follow the gui deline issued for that purpose, such mistakes can be rectified under the policy circulars issued by the authority, as has been done in the instant case, on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent No.4. The learned Sr. counsel fur ther submits that the marks to which the respondent No.4 was entitled to having not been awarded by the earlier L1 Committee, the said mistake has been rectifie d by the 2nd L1 Committee after re-evaluation in terms of the guideline issued. Relating to the submission of the petitioner about the requirement of re-evaluat ing the marks secured by different applicants by the L1 Committee consisting of the same members, it has been submitted by the learned Sr. counsel that the guid eline dated 29.04.2010 issued for handling the grievance/complaint with regard t o the selection of dealers/ distributors, issued by IOCL does not envisage the r equirement of re-evaluation by the L1 Committee consisting of the same members, rather it is evident from clause 2.2(c) of the said guideline dated 29.04.2010 t hat the L1 Committee consisting of the members other than the members consisting the earlier L1 Committee can re-evaluate the marks earlier allotted and award m arks after re-evaluation. It has also been submitted that because of the integra tion of the Assam Oil Division of the Corporation with the Marketing Division of IOCL since there has been a lot of re-arrangement of personals along with their posts, it was not possible to continue with the same L1 Committee, for which a new L1 Committee was constituted for the purpose of re-evaluation on the basis o f the documents submitted by all the applicants and in terms of the guidelines r elating to the marketing procedure issued. Constitution of the 2nd L1 Committee in any case, according to the learned counsel, is not contrary to the policy gui delines issued by the IOCL. The learned Sr. counsel further submits that though the respondent No.4 was entitled to more marks under the head Education in ter ms of the guideline for evaluation issued by the Corporation dated 29.06.2007, s he was awarded lesser marks by the earlier L1 Committee. Similarly under the sai d guideline though the respondent No.4 was entitled to more marks under the sub- head Funds under the head Capability to provide finance , she was allotted l sser marks by the L1 Committee, which necessitated re-evaluation of the marks al lotted by the L1 Committee and the revision of the same, consequently revision o f the list of empanelled candidates. The learned Sr. counsel, therefore, submits that there is no illegality committed in re-evaluation and also the publication of revised list of empanelled candidates for appointment as distributor at Bord owa in the district of Nagaon, Assam. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 supporting the arg uments advanced by the learned Sr. counsel for the IOCL, has also submitted that the earlier L1 Committee denied the respondent No.4 the marks to which she was entitled to under the guidelines dated 29.06.2007 issued by the authority for al lotment of the marks, which necessitated filing of the complaint, re-evaluation and publication of the revised list of empanelled candidates. According to the l earned counsel the respondent No.4’s right to get the marks which she deserves c annot be defeated for infraction of the guideline issued by the IOCL relating to the time limit to be maintained for disposal of such complaint, more so, when t he purpose of fixing the time limit is only to facilitate early disposal of comp laint, infraction of which does not create any right in favour of the writ petit ioner. It has also been submitted that the policy circulars issued by the respon dent authority do not envisage the re-evaluation by the same L1 Committee, which is evident from the language used in clause 2.2(c) of the policy guideline date d 29.04.2010. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings of the parties apart from the records produced b y the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent IOCL. 9. The IOCL issued the policy circular dated 11.02.2004 relating to the pro cedure for handling of grievances/complaints with regard to selection of dealers /distributors. Under the said policy circular, on receipt of a complaint/grievan ce, with regard to the selection, a screening committee consisting of State Reta il Head and the State LPG Head is required to be constituted to screen the compl aints. The Screening Committee is required to categorize such complaint broadly under three heads, namely, anonymous complaint, complaints having names and addr esses but not having verifiable supporting documents/issues and the complaints h aving verifiable supporting documents/issues, which can be verified. The Screeni ng Committee, thereafter, is to submit the report to the State Head. In case of the complaints having specific and verifiable allegation, the investigating offi cer is required to be appointed, if the Screening Committee recommends for inves tigation. The investigating officer, thereafter, is to submit the report along w ith finding and the specific recommendation which ultimately is to be put up for final decision before the State Head. 10. The guideline dated 29.04.2010 issued by the IOCL stipulates the procedu re in handling the complaints against the selection of dealers/distributors, whi ch are in addition to the aforesaid policy guideline issued on 11.02.2004. Claus e 2.2 of the policy guideline dated 29.04.2010 provides that where there is comp laint relating to the error in evaluation by the L1 Committee, which error is es tablished in document based evaluation by L1 Committee, re-evaluation of all the applicants by L1 Committee is to be arranged. It also provides that during re-e valuation, L1 Committee will record justification for any change in marks for ev ery candidate under any parameter. The result of the re-evaluation is thereafter required to be examined by a Committee of the State Retail Head and State LPG H ead, for which the said Committee may interact with the L1 Committee involved in re-evaluation. It further provides that when there is an allegation of error in evaluation by L1 Committee, there will be no re-interview and the marks allotte d by L2 Committee (on interview based parameters) will be considered for revised result. In case there is change of ranking in merit panel, revised mark-sheet a nd the panel is to be prepared and published thereafter. 11. A guideline laying down the norms for evaluating the candidates both by L1 and L2 Committee, under different parameters for distributorship, was framed on 29.06.2007, on the basis of which the L1 and L2 Committees are required to al lot the marks out of total marks of 100. Out of the said total marks of 100, 35 maximum marks is allotted for capability to provide infrastructure facilities , 35 marks for capability to provide finance , 15 marks for educational qualifi cation and 4 marks for age by the L1 Committee. The maximum marks that can be awarded by the L2 Committee out of 100 is 11. The aforesaid 4 parameters, in wh ich the L1 Committee is to award marks, is divided into different sub-heads. In the instant case, the re-evaluation having been done in respect of the parameter capability to provide finance and educational qualification , the sub-head nder the said parameters are only taken note of. 35 marks for the parameter cap ability to provide finance is sub-divided to 18 marks for financially sound-fu nds , 7 marks for ability to arrange loan , 5 marks for assets and 5 marks r income . As per the said guideline, if an applicant is matriculate/SSC/10th p assed, he is to be awarded 7 marks and in case of 12th passed 8 marks in case of graduate 10 and in case of post graduate and higher qualification 12 marks, out of 15 marks allotted for that purpose. It also provides that for additional qua lification of any diploma or degree, one has to be awarded 1 additional mark for additional qualification. An applicant, who has professional degree like any te chnical decree, law etc. he is entitled to 15 marks. 12. The L1 Committee, which Committee is not required to interview the appli cants, but to award marks on the basis of the aforesaid parameters, based on the documents submitted by different applicants, initially awarded 33 marks out of maximum 35 under the parameter capability to provide finance and 12 marks out of maximum 15 under the parameter educational qualification to the petitioner and 31.8 and 10 marks under the said parameters, respectively, to the respondent No.4. Taking into account the marks allotted by the said L1 Committee under oth er parameters, while the petitioner secured 84 out of maximum of 89, the respond ent No.4 secured 80.8 marks out of the maximum mark of 89. The L2 Committee awar ded 6.5 and 9 marks to the petitioner and the respondent No.4 respectively and t hus taking into account the marks awarded by both the L1 and L2 Committee, the p etitioner shown to have secured 90.5 marks as against 89.8 marks secured by the respondent No.4, thereby placing the petitioner in the first position of the mer it list. 13. As notice above, the respondent No.4 being aggrieved by the marks awarde d by the L1 Committee lodged the complaint which was scrutinized by the Screenin g Committee and thereafter the investigation was carried out by the investigatin g officer appointed for that purpose. The State Head having accepted the recomme ndation of the investigating officer decided to re-evaluate the marks awarded to different applicants by the L1 Committee and accordingly an L1 Committee was co nstituted who re-evaluate the marks based on the documents supplied by different applicants along with their bids and has found that though the respondent No.4 was entitled to 17.6 marks, out of 18 marks under the sub-head fund , she was g iven 15.4 marks by the earlier L1 Committee. Similarly under the parameter educ ational qualification additional mark of 1 for the additional qualification was not awarded to the respondent No.4 by the earlier L1 Committee though she was e ntitled to the same and accordingly revised the marks to 17.6 in place of 15.4 u nder the sub-head fund and total 11 marks under the parameter educational qua lification , thereby awarding the total 84 marks out of the maximum of 89 marks instead of 80.8 marks allotted by the earlier L1 Committee. Taking into account the marks allotted by the L2 Committee, while the marks secured by the petitione r remains to be same i.e. 90.5, the marks secured by the respondent No.4 was inc reased to 93 from 89.8. Consequently the revised list of empanelled candidates w as prepared and published by the authority concerned. 14. Clause 3.4 and clause 5.0 of the guideline dated 11.02.2004 though provi des for the time frame for investigation by the investigating officer and for di sposal of the complaints, non-adherence of such time limit would not defeat the right of an applicant to get the marks to which he/she is entitled to, in terms of the norms fixed by the authority for evaluating the candidates. Such non-adhe rence of the time limit also does not create any right in favour of an applicant , who has been selected based on error in evaluation. The time limit is stipulat ed in the said guideline to facilitate prompt action on the complaint so that th e grievance of a complainant is redressed early. That being the position, the fi rst contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-adherence to t he time limit stipulated in the guideline dated 11.02.2004 vitiated the revised list of empanelled candidates, cannot be accepted and hence rejected. Moreover t he earlier guideline dated 11.02.2004 has been modified by the subsequent guidel ine dated 29.04.2010, which does not stipulate any time frame. 15. Clause 2.2 of the policy guideline dated 29.04.2010 lays down the modifi ed procedure of re-evaluation by the L1 Committee, which is quoted in its entire ty:- 2.2 In other cases where complaint is substantiated due to error in evaluati on by L-1 Committee: The modified procedure is as under: a) In cases where error is established in document based evaluation (by L-1 committee), re-evaluation of all the applicants by L-1 committee will be arrang ed. During re-evaluation, L-1 committee will record justification for any change in marks (for every candidate under any parameter). b) There will be no re-interview and the marks awarded by L-2 Committee (on interview based parameters) will be considered for revised result. c) A committee of State Retail and State LPG Head will examine the re-evalu ation of L-1 committee. For this purpose, if required, committee may interact wi th L-1 committee (involved in re-evaluation). This Committee will review reasons /justification for every change from the declared mark sheet and submit recommen dations to State Head for taking a decision to rectify the marks and/or revise t he merit panel. d) Where there is CHANGE OF RANKINGS IN MERIT PANEL, revised mark sheet and panel will be displayed on the notice board/IOC website besides separate commun ication to all empanelled candidates (pre-revised and revised empanelled candida tes) by the DRSM/AM within 7 days from receiving the decision from State Office. State office should also communicate the decision to the complainant by way of speaking order, as is being done presently. e) Where there is NO CHANGE OF RANKINGS IN MERIT PANEL, the decision should be conveyed by way of speaking order to the complainant by the State Office. 16. It is evident from the clause 2.2 of the said guideline as quoted above that in cases where error is established in document based evaluation by L1 Comm ittee, re-evaluation of all the applicants by L1 Committee is required to be arr anged. Sub-clause (c) of clause 2.2 requires a Committee consisting of State Ret ail and State LPG head to examine the re-evaluation of L1 Committee, for which p urpose, if required the said Committee may also interact with the L1 Committee i nvolved in re-evaluation. The language used in the said sub-clause, therefore, i ndicates that there can be re-evaluation by a different L1 Committee and it is n ot always necessary that the L1 Committee consisting of same members is to make the re-evaluation. That apart such re-evaluation/review is not a statutory re-ev aluation or review but the administrative re-evaluation/review. Re-evaluation by a different L1 Committee, therefore, is not entirely impermissible. Moreover, a s discussed above, though the respondent No.4 was entitled to more marks under t he sub-head fund under the parameter capability to provide finance , she was allotted lesser marks by the earlier L1 Committee. Similarly the additional mark 1 for the additional qualification under the parameter educational qualificati on was not awarded to the respondent No.4 by the earlier L1 Committee. Hence in any case the decision of the authority to award the marks to which the responde nt No.4 was entitled to cannot said to be illegal. 17. That being the position, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, w hich accordingly is dismissed. No cost.