THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 18340 OF 2011 O R D E R : This Writ Petition has been instituted by one of the competing candidates seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of Respondents 1 to 6 in accepting the application of the 7th respondent herein and after evaluation, awarding him marks of 93.60 and on that basis, enlisting him at first position of the selection list for appointment for retail outlet dealership of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at Choutuppal-Malkapur National Highway No.9 in Choutuppal Mandal of Nalgonda District, as bad in law. The writ petitioner is one of the several candidates, who has responded to the notification issued by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited inviting applications for appointment of dealers at various places in the State. The advertisement appeared in various newspapers issued on 17th and 18th September 2010. In the instant case, we are concerned with the retail outlet, Sl.No. 206, sought to be established at Choutuppal-Malkapur road, National Highway No.9 at Choutuppal Mandal of Nalgonda District. The writ petitioner as well as the 7th respondent have both applied within time and they were both subjected to a process of interview test on 16.03.2011 from 02.00 p.m. onwards, after the Land Evaluation Committee constituted by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited has found both the applications as responsive. However, the writ petitioner submits that when all the candidates have assembled for the interview test, a maroon colour Innova vehicle, with a sticker of Member of Parliament exhibited thereon, entered the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited office premises and an elderly gentleman got out of the vehicle and met the 7th respondent in the conference hall where the rest of the participants were all assembled and the elderly gentleman handed over a letter ensuring loan/creditworthiness of the 7th respondent and the same was subsequently inserted into the record of the 7th respondent clandestinely and hence, the selection process undertaken by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is vitiated. It is further submitted by the writ petitioner that immediately after the interviews were conducted on 16.03.2011, the results have not been either published or exhibited on the oil company’s website. Only when the petitioner pursued the matter vigorously, was the information disclosed that the 7th respondent was listed as No.1 and the writ petitioner has been put at No.2. In view of the circumstances, which preceded the selection process, the writ petitioner has submitted that the 7th respondent has never submitted a project report concerning the retail outlet and further, his creditworthiness as vouchsafed by a banker has also not been submitted by him, but these papers have been clandestinely incorporated into the file by the officials of the oil company with a view to confer a favour on the 7th respondent because of his influence and reach. It is the specific case of the petitioner that excessive marks have been awarded to the 7th respondent by the Evaluation Committee only with a view to boost up his overall rating, so as to ensure that he will end up as most preferred candidate for sanction of the retail outlet. In view of the serious nature of the averments made by the petitioner herein in the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition, this Court has put the respondents on notice on 01.07.2011 and also directed Respondents 1 to 6 not to finalize the selection of the retail outlet dealership with regard to Choutuppal-Malkapur outlet bearing Sl.No. 206. This Court further directed the learned Standing Counsel for the Oil Company to produce the original records. Accordingly, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Oil Company has produced the entire records before me yesterday. I was also assisted in perusing the said records by Sri Ch. Dhananjaya and Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Oil Company and Ms. Padma Saranappa, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent. After a careful scrutiny of the records produced by the Oil Company, the following facts have emerged: 1) After the last date for receipt of applications is over, a Committee of two officers have opened up the covers containing the applications of each candidate and they have prepared a checklist indicating therein as to how the applicants have satisfied various norms. Thereafter, the file appears to have been verified by the Territory Manager of the Oil Company. Each paper contained as Annexure to the application is numbered in serial order and the total number of pages contained in the cover have also been recorded on the cover through which the application has been lodged by the respective candidates. In the instant case, the cover containing the application of the writ petitioner has 105 pages. Each of these 105 pages has been numbered in serial order by one of the officers of the Oil Company and he has also put his initial on each of these pages. Similarly, the cover through which the application was submitted by the 7th respondent contained 51 pages. On the cover of the 7th respondent’s application, it was clearly noted that the application contained 51 pages and two officers have signed the cover and below their signatures, they have also put the date 21.10.2010. 2) When I have verified each of those 51 pages, I have noticed that Sl.No. 31 has been assigned erroneously twice by the officer in succession. He signed both the pages. Though the 7th respondent’s application contained 52 pages, due to the above error, it was recorded by the officials of the Oil Company as if it was containing only 51 pages. 3) Incidentally, the error-prone 31st page, which appeared twice, has no relationship with either the project report or the financial/creditworthiness certificates furnished by the banker of the 7th respondent. Therefore, it is safe to presume that one of these two pages of 31 could not have been inserted subsequently. 4) The Oil Company has constituted a three-member committee for inspecting the respective sites offered by each of the candidates. The said Committee evaluated, based upon the fixed parameters, the marks liable to be awarded to each of the sites. That exercise was completed on 20th and/or 21st November 2010. 5) The application of the 7th respondent accompanied the project report in three pages, which are given Sl.Nos. 15, 16 and 17. Immediately thereafter, three manuscript papers were also found. However, they were given page numbers as 17-A, B and C. These three manuscript papers of the 7th respondent have nothing to do with the project report part of it. Those three pages contain the information as to how the site of the 7th respondent which is offered can be reached and also the commercial importance and significance of Choutuppal Town. In fact, these three manuscript pages are also forming part of the application, inasmuch as serial pagination has been done by the officers of the oil company for these three pages also. Otherwise, their count would have gone wrong when they noted that the application contained 51 pages. It is thus clear that no insertions have taken place into the file of the 7th respondent after the date of submission of his application. The three manuscript papers, which are numbered as 17-A, B and C, have not fetched any additional marks to the 7th respondent, inasmuch as they contain only the information as to how one can reach his site as well as the commercial importance and significance of Choutuppal Town for which no special or additional marks are awarded to the 7th respondent. An analysis of the above findings, after scrutiny of the record, reveals that the project report of the 7th respondent has been submitted by him along with his application. It is a computer generated print out. Insofar as the creditworthiness or the financial ability of the writ petitioner is concerned, he has produced two separate certificates, one from UCO Bank and another from HDFC Bank. They were also submitted along with the application form. They were serially numbered at the time of the scrutiny undertaken by the officers of the Oil Company. Therefore, I am satisfied that the allegations of the writ petitioner in this regard are mere apprehensions entertained by him, but they are not true. Possibly, the visitor on the date of interview who met the 7th respondent has induced these apprehensions in the mind of the petitioner. Further, during the course of interview on 16.03.2011, the oil company has shown to each of the candidates, who appeared before them, the marks allotted out of 35 or 25, as the case may be by the three-member Evaluation Committee. The writ petitioner as well as the 7th respondent both have affixed their signatures on the evaluation sheet like other candidates, who appeared at the interview. The Site Evaluation Committee has awarded more marks to the 7th respondent because of the site advantage than that of the writ petitioner. Admittedly, the site evaluation has taken place in November 2010, which is much prior to the date of interview undertaken on 16.03.2011. Further, the site of the respective candidates was inspected in their very presence by the Evaluation Committee. Therefore, the assessment made by the Site Evaluation Committee could not be faulted on any score. When it came to evaluation of the rest of the parameters, the writ petitioner herein as well as the 7th respondent, both of them being PG Degree holders and have almost identical experience and financial ability and ability to generate business, have got nearly identical marks. When it came to the interview, it was headed by a Chairman and comprise of two other members. Each one of these three members has evaluated the performance of each of the candidates interviewed by them independently. They have signed their evaluation sheets. Thereafter, the marks awarded by each of the three members have been added and an average has been worked out. Thus, the arrived marks have been noted on a separate sheet, which has been signed by the Chairman and first member and on a separate sheet, containing the same average marks, the 3rd member has signed. No reasons are available in the file as to why the 2nd member of the committee has assigned the average marks on a separate sheet. However, not much turns on that, inasmuch as except one member, who awarded two out of two marks to the 7th respondent insofar as his personality is assessed, the other two members including the Chairman has awarded him 1.8 and 1.85 marks, whereas the writ petitioner was awarded 1.7 marks by them. Further, the range of marks awarded indicated that candidates were awarded 1.8, 1.7, 1.6, 1.4 and 1.3 by the individual members. From a perusal of this record, I am not in a position to accede to the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the interview test has purposefully inflated the marks of the 7th respondent to confer a favour on him. There appears to be a proper evaluation undertaken. Further, the total marks available for the interview process being only 9 marks, and the rest of 91 marks are available for evaluation of the other parameters, where, incidentally, the writ petitioner got slightly lesser marks than the 7th respondent, the ultimate selection of the 7th respondent and enlisting him at first rank does not appear to be either arbitrary or unjust. I therefore, do not find any merit in the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner for issuing the writ as prayed for. However, Sri Dhananjaya and Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel reiterated that the Oil Company itself has provided for a representation to be submitted to the Grievance Committee. That is an internal mechanism. Perhaps, the Grievance Committee being a body comprising of superior officers of the Oil Company, they will be able to make a better assessment as to the standards of fairness adopted by the various Evaluation Committees. I consider that this contention of the learned counsel is well- merited. It is always open to the petitioner to agitate the matter before any such Grievance Committee constituted by the oil company. It is for that Committee to come to a conclusion independently and uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. In fact, the Grievance Committee, obviously comprising of superior rank officers of the Oil Company, will be able to make a better assessment as to the standards of evaluation and fairness of evaluation undertaken by the various committees to which this task was entrusted by the oil company. Therefore, preserving that liberty to the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed, but however, without costs. ---------------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 9th September 2011 ksld