IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13113 of 2007 SMT.KAMANI DEVI WIFE OF SRI ALOK KUMAR CHAUDHARI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NANPUR, P.O. NANPUR, P.S. NANPUR, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. Versus 1. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENERPRISES, THROUGH ITS RETAIL SALES AREA MARKETING MANAGER, ASHIANA CHAMBERS, EXHIBITIN ROAD, PATNA. 2. SENIOR MANAGER (R.S.) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATIN LTD, MUZAFFARPUR SALES OFFICE, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. SUDHA JAISWAL, WIFE OF SRI CHANDAN KUMAR RESIDING AT VILLAGBE NANPUR, P.O. & P.S. NANPUR, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. ----------- 3 09/03/2010 Petitioner got aggrieved by the selection of private respondent, namely, respondent no. 3 when selection was made by the Selection Committee for a retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at Nanpur located in the district of Sitamarhi. The retail outlet was advertised under the open category restricted to „women‟. Averments and statements have been made in the writ application alleging that the private respondent has been favoured by the selection committee by award of extra marks under various parameters and some of the documentations and declarations are misleading and false. If all that aspects would have been considered by the respondents the - 2 - petitioner would have been on merit list at number 1 and not the private respondent. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited denies all the allegations. The stand is that the selection committee has awarded marks strictly in accordance with the parameters and dependent on the furnishing of various materials to the interview board. The first allegation that the private respondent had been given extra marks under the category of land has been explained in the counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner had offered a land for which she has only a power of attorney to use the said land for the purpose of retail outlet. The power of attorney was executed by the father-in-law whereas the private respondent had offered a land for which she held a registered lease deed for a period of thirty years. One of the terms and conditions of the advertisement does state that either the land should be owned by the candidate or the lease must subsists for a period of thirty years. Obviously, the private respondent had a much better clear title and right to use the land than the mere power of attorney which was executed in favour of the petitioner. The private respondent - 3 - has been given 33.95 marks whereas the present petitioner was awarded 24-25 marks. The other allegation is that the land offered by the petitioner has better commercial viability. Even this aspect has been explained in the counter affidavit. The Court can only observe that the commercial viability has to be decided by the Corporation and not by an individual. Another allegation made against the private respondent is that she had been granted extra marks under the head “education”. The fact, as it stands, is that the petitioner is Madhyama which is akin to matriculation which is an educational degree acquired through medium of Sanskrit whereas the private respondent is an Intermediate. In the opinion of this Court, the private respondent surely has a better qualification and level of education than the petitioner. Here the difference of marks is one which is rationale enough. Another allegation has been made with regard to the immovable property held by the petitioner vis-à-vis private respondent. In this regard the declaration made by the two candidates was before the interview board and those - 4 - declarations formed the basis of award of marks. The petitioner has even gone to allege that the experience certificate furnished by the private respondent is a forged document but there is no supporting material to establish. In the totality of the averments made in the writ application and the response given to the same by the respondent Corporation, the Court came to a considered opinion that the allegation made are more made than made out. The Court can very well understand why such allegations have been made against the selected candidate. The awarding of marks is not per se arbitrary in view of explanation offered by the Corporation which are cogent. Even otherwise, if there are no major breaches established with regard to the guidelines, it is not for the Court to sit and carry out a comparative analysis of the evaluation done by the selection board while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has not made out a case for interference with the selection of the private respondent. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) - 5 -