IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9347 of 2011 Baldev Singh Petitioner Versus Union of India, New Delhi & others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Manmeet Sing RNA, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner had applied for LPG Distributorship with Indian Oil Corporation (For short “IOC”) as well as for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to “HPCL”). The petitioner being eligible was called for interview by both the Oil Corporations. The result of the interview held by the IOC was declared on 17.7.2010 and by HPCL on 26.9.2009. Copies of the result-sheets have been placed on record. The petitioner says that he was surprised on receiving the result. As per the petitioner, he was assured by IOC that LPG Distributorship would be given to him. The petitioner in fact has been placed at 14 position in order of merit on the basis of interview. His grievance is that he has been given low assessment. The petitioner has been given 25.08 marks in total, whereas the candidate, who has topped the merit list, has been awarded 28.08 marks. The petitioner would claim that he is entitled to better assessment and in this regard makes reference to the assessment made by HPCL, where he has been given 28.33 marks. He has accordingly challenged the result declared by the IOC. The petitioner has primarily made grievance on two counts. He would first submit that the selected candidate-respondent No.5 was awarded 15 marks in the criteria of educational Civil Writ Petition No.9347 of 2011 :2: qualification where he would deserve only 12 marks in this category. The basis for this submission is that the degree of MBA was never produced and only certificate (Annexure P-6) was placed by the said respondent, which is not a degree. The second limb of submission, as made by the counsel for the petitioner, is that the said respondent has also been wrongly assessed and given 3 marks in the column of experience out of maximum 4 marks, whereas the petitioner has been given 2.17 marks, though he has a better experience to show. Annexure P-6 clearly gives out that respondent Gagandeep Singh has done Masters Programme in Business Administration (MBA), which he has passed with `A' grade. This result is dated 17.11.2006 much prior to the date even when the advertisement was not visualised. It was for the official respondents to consider the worth of this certificate and if taking this into consideration, the official respondents have treated respondent No.5 to be qualified in MBA, it cannot be termed as unfair or unreasonable. It is also for the official respondents to consider the experience, which would be appropriate for their purpose and in case on the basis of any experience certificate given by respondent No.5 they have assessed him with 3 marks, there is no reason for this court to substitute it with its own view. The reference made to the guidelines in this regard would be only for the official respondents to adhere to so that possibility of any unfair assessment is ruled out. How assessment is to be done and what marks are to be awarded would not be within the purview of this court. The power of judicial review is available against the decision making process and not against the decision as such. In this regard, reference can be made to the decisions in the cases of DA Slounke Vs. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 434, Smt.Monika Gupta Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 2010(5) SCALE 643, M/s Shree Gomukh Marking Private Limited Versus Hindustan Petroleum Company Limited, Panipat and another (Civil Writ Petition No.15681 of 2007), decided on 16.9.2008. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. May 25, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE