^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(QNo. ^/3'^ /2010 X ll^i PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 3^^ 2] .}S^^ ..••"".•.^••"'.v.&"< •"-^-.-"'_ ;.><•' .-/-^ ^^ 1 '^'^ Harinandan Singh, S/o. Ramprasad Singh., aged about 41 years, R/o. Village Aamgaon, Police Station Salhi, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1] Union of India, through: Secretary., Ministry of Petroleum., New Delhi Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through: its Regional manager, Madina Manjil, 2nd Floor, Medical College Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3] " Dealer Selection Board, through: its Non-Member Secretary, Major Kalhar House, Shyam Nagar Road, Katora Talab, Raipur (C.G.) 4] Vinay Prakash Ekka, C/o. Shri Blasius Ekka, R/o. Roseline Niwas Raigarh Road., Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 6133 OF 2010 Petitioner Versus Respondents Harinandan Singh Union of India & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Manoj Pranjape, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R. Pradhan, Standing counsel for the respondent No.1/ Union oflndia. Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 & 4. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on 25th day of October, 2010) 1. Heard tearned counsel for the parties. 2. The indisputable facts, in this petition, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.8.2000, inviting applications for distributorship of LPG from Schedule Tribe candidates in various places, the petitioner also applied and participated in the selection process. The petitioner was informed by letter dsted 16.2.2001 to appear in the interview to be held on 24.3.2001 and the petitioner was allotted LPG dealership at Surajpur, District Surguja, on 1.6.2002 (Annexure P-1). Subsequently, the Union of India cancelled the allotment of all the dealers including the petitioner; however, the same is not under challenge in this petition. Thereafter, pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.1.2007, the petitioner made an application for allotment of distributorship /dealership of LPG at Surajpur (S.T. category). The interview was held on 8.4.2008 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner secured 94 marks out of 100 and the respondent No.4 secured 98 marks, being No.1 1— 1 2 in the list and accordingly the respondent No.4 was allotted the dealership of LPG at Surajpur, District Surguja. The petitioner questions the allotment of marks under the category of business ability/ acumen, wherein the petitioner was awarded 2 marks and the respondent No.4 was awarded 5 marks. The sole ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 without having business experience, has been granted 5 marks under the head of business ability/ acumen out of 5 marks; whereas the petitioner who is at serial No.18 has been granted 2 marks, though he was allotted earlier the distributorship of LPG, which was canceled subsequently on account of mass cancellation. It appears to be a case of discrimination. Shri Paranjape, learned counsel further submits that there is no explanation asto why the respondent No.4 was granted more marks. It is well settled principle of law that in case of selection process/ assessment process for selection, the marks awarded by the selectors/expert in the field, cannot be questioned before the High Court on the groynd of self-same statement that grant of more marks indicate discrimination. Secondly, it is also not necessary tp state justification or explanation for award of marks to the applicants in each and every case. The selectors are well qualified to assess the capabilities of the applicant for the purpose of distributorship, which cannot be lightly interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi'a. qr ashok The Supreme Court in case of Union Public Service Commission v. L.P. Tiwari & Others1 has observed as under: "12. It is now more or less well settled that the evaluation made by an expert committee should not be easily interfered with by the courts which do not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose". Further, in Union of India & Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar & Others2, held as under: "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, see also Rashmi Mishra v. M.P.Public Service Commission)." In view of foregoing, the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd7- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (2006)128cc317 2 (2007)83cc 100