IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.496 of 2009 OBINATH HEMBRAM SON OF SRI UPENDRA HEMBRAM, RESIDENT OF AT AND PO. MOHINI, P.S. BOUSI BASITHY, DISTRICT- ARARIA, BIHAR ………………APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS,SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT G-9, ALI YAWAR JANG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400051 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 3. THE SENIOR DEVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (MARKETING DIVISION), PATNA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BLOCK-A, 3RD FLOOR, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD,PATNA 4. THE SALES OFFICER, PURNEA DIVISON, INDIANOIL CORPORATION LTD. ……………RESPONDENTS ----------- 5 04/12/2009 Interlocutory Application No. 1576 of 2009 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing this appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the I. A. No. 1576 of 2009, the same is allowed and the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Union of India as well as learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation and its officials. The appellant had applied for retail out-let pursuant to an advertisement made by the Indian Oil Corporation and since he belongs to Scheduled Tribe category, he was not required to furnish proof of land and infrastructure which was to be provided by the company if he succeeded amongst all the applicants of that category and secured the minimum required marks. A 2 letter of intent was issued to the appellant but thereafter the company did not proceed to make available retail out-let by providing land and other infrastructure and hence, he preferred the writ petition. In course of hearing of the writ petition the stand of the corporation was made clear that while evaluating the marks obtained by the petitioner on different parameters as per guidelines for selection of retail out-let and evaluation criteria for selection contained in Annexures A and A/1 to the counter affidavit, it was later detected that the appellant had secured only 26 marks out of 65 marks meant for different parameters except land and infrastructure for which the mark was 35. The writ court noticed paragraphs 4.3.13.3 of guidelines for selection of retail out-let (Annexure-A) which provides that in case of other categories of candidates, the minimum qualifying marks will be 60 per cent. In the preceding paragraph, the guidelines dealt with different category of candidates. The writ court also noticed the evaluation criteria contained in Annexure-A/1 which provides that in cases where the prospective dealer is not required to offer/arrange land, the evaluation will be done without considering the 35 marks earmarked for land and evaluation will be done on 65 3 marks. In view of the aforesaid provisions, in the guidelines and evaluation criteria, the note given in the marks sheet format that in cases where land is not required by the Oil Company from the applicants, while evaluating the suitability of the candidates 35 % marks will be allotted under the parameter: capability to provide infrastructure and facilities to all interviewees and the inter-se suitability will be judged on the remaining parameters, did not impress the writ court. In our view, the stage to consider inter-se suitability could arise only when a candidate secured the minimum qualifying marks which in the present case was 39 out of 65. Admittedly, appellant has not secured 39 marks. In view of aforesaid facts, the writ court found no merit in the writ petition in spite of noticing delay on the part of the Corporation in taking the decision against the writ petitioner. We find no good ground to interfere with the judgment and order of the writ court. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin