C.W.P. No.15453 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.15453 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision.03.08.2011 Choli Singh son of Shri Bhupinder Singh, aged 32 years, resident of Satnam Pura, Phagwara, District Kapurthala .....Petitioner Versus The Indian Oil Corporation through its General Manager, Sector 19, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. GBS Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) C.M .No.10351 of 2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. C.W.P. No.15453 of 2009 1. The petitioner challenges the allotment of Indane Gas Distribution Agency of Phagwara-II, which according to him, ignored the true merits of the petitioner and preferred the claim of the 2nd respondent to award him with the distribution agency. 2. While setting out the relative merits of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has a grievance about the marks, which have been assigned to the petitioner for his experience while he has C.W.P. No.15453 of 2009 (O&M) -2- been awarded “0” marks, 2nd respondent has been awarded 4 marks. The 2nd respondent has had a tally of two marks in excess and if four marks are awarded to him, which the petitioner claims he was entitled to, he will be seen as having secured higher marks and therefore, also entitled to the award of agency. 3. As regards the experience, the advertisement sets out the manner of proof of the experience. Clause 8 mentioned in the advertisement poses the question and it is reproduced as under:- “8. Do you have experience of running or working in any of the establishment dealing in the following for minimum on year? Direct Sale/Home Delivered products (including LPG distributorship) Other Petroleum products Any other Trade (if yes, give full details chronologically along with documentary evidence that establishes the experience. In case you are/were employee, then attach Experience Certificate and salary certificate/slips issued by the employer. In case of self- employed, attach copy of Certificate from State Govt./Statutory Body/Trade License/Sales Tax Certificate/Shop & Establishment Certificate etc. with details of business activity).” 4. The petitioner relies on the fact that he was the licencee authorized to sell Punjab Medium Liquor for consumption off the premises and the licence was for a period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent points out that the experience, which the advertisement requires, is for a period of one year prior to the filing of the application and at the time when the application had been submitted, the petitioner had only eight months of service. Any subsequent service shall not be taken into reckoning for C.W.P. No.15453 of 2009 (O&M) -3- computation of period of one year. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the interview itself was conducted more than a year later and therefore, the experience for the whole licence period must be taken. This contention cannot be accepted, for, the eligibility must be understood as on the date when a person applies for agency and the period of experience as mentioned in the advertisement, must also be understood as only operative for a period prior to the application itself. It is evident that the petitioner did not have the requisite experience in the liquor trade that he was canvassing for. The petitioner would also contend that even apart from this, he was working in Sondhi Gas Service as a Booking-cum-Relations Officer since 01.05.2005 and the certificate has been issued on 14.10.2006. The contention of the petitioner is that this experience must have been taken and suitable marks must have been awarded. The advertisement again is an indicator of how the proof of a person, who claims to be under the employment of some person is to be done. Clause 8, which was reproduced above requires an experience certificate and salary certificate/slips issued by the employer. In this case, we have seen only a certificate issued by the employer and the petitioner has not admittedly submitted any salary certificate or a salary slip issued by the employer. The petitioner has, however, relied on a bank account statement of his employer. The bank statement is not the same thing as production of a salary slip or a salary certificate from the employer and the copy of the bank statement of Punjab Medium Liquor and Sondhi Gas Service produced by the Corporation makes merely reference to several debits and credits and gives out no particular details of debit for money C.W.P. No.15453 of 2009 (O&M) -4- issued in the name of the petitioner. It is not possible to correlate the entries found in the bank passbook to the salary as alleged to have been paid to him. Even assuming that the bank statement contains any detail of issuance of cheques to the petitioner, it cannot be accepted that the respondent could rely on the details to find out whether any of the entries in the bank statement refers to the salary fetched to him. If there is a particular proof that is spelt out in the advertisement for payment of salary, it shall be complied with in the same fashion. I find the absence of salary certificate in the manner sought in the advertisement that will disentitle the petitioner to contend that he had adduced proof of the fact that he had been employed at the relevant time. If the respondent had not awarded any marks for his experience, I would find under the circumstances, it was perfectly justified. 5. Learned counsel would also argue that in the manner of evaluation of several candidates, who had applied along with him wherever marks were not assigned, there had been detailed explanation of why it was not done. Learned counsel refers to entry Nos.21, 24, 26, 27, 28 and 30, which brings out the discrepancies found in the details spelt out in the application form, what was produced as documents along with the application or produced at the time of interview. According to the learned counsel, if the experience certificate given by the petitioner was not sufficient, it must have been specifically recorded in the chart. I will not accept this contention, for, if appropriate explanation is offered before this Court and the reason why the petitioner was not being awarded any marks for experience, I would take that to be sufficient. The entries in the chart as to why C.W.P. No.15453 of 2009 (O&M) -5- some persons were found ineligible, are methods of reckoning for their own purpose and I will not find that to be a serious lapse that could entitle the petitioner to contend that there had been any arbitrariness in the decision taken by the respondent. 6. The decision of the 1st respondent awarding contract of agency to the 2nd respondent, under the circumstances, shall be seen to be justified and the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 03, 2011 Pankaj*