L.P.A No. 639 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : August 9th, 2010 1. L.P.A No. 639 of 2010 (O&M) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation vs Jaimal Kumar & Others Limited & Ors 2. L.P.A No. 849 of 2010 (O&M) Neelam Chander vs Jaimal Kumar and others *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants in LPA No.639 of 2010. Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant in LPA No.849 of 2010. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This order shall dispose of LPA Nos.639 and 849 of 2010 since they arise from a common order of the learned Single Judge allowing the civil writ petition filed by Jaimal Kumar and thereby setting aside the allotment of gas agency in favour of appellant-Neelam Chander and ordering a fresh consideration by the Selection Committee. In the interview for selection, the appellant-Neelam Chander was given 29 marks while respondent No.1-Jaimal Kumar was given 28.33 L.P.A No. 639 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: marks. A difference arose on account of the fact that for experience, the appellant was given 4 marks while respondent No.1 was given 3 marks. The learned Single Judge noticed the fact that the experience certificate of the appellant was given by her father at Karnal and that too for a period of time when she was a regular student at Chandigarh. The second limb of experience of the appellant taken into consideration by the Selection Committee was that of 1.1/2 year as an Advocate. The learned Single Judge concluded that the marks given to the appellant for experience were clearly and manifestly undeserved and wholly suspect. Counsel for the appellant/s have argued that it was not the province of the Court to tinker with the evaluation made by the Selection Committee. We, however, regret our inability to concur with the above contention. In view of the stark facts brought out, no fault can be found with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in holding that the marks awarded to the appellant-Neelam Chander for experience were clearly arbitrary. The writ Court cannot be deflected from its basic purpose of doing justice by pedantic and legalistic arguments. Reference in this regard can be made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana, (1980)2 SCC 437, wherein it was held as follows :- “ Article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order as public interest dictates and equity projects : L.P.A No. 639 of 2010 (O&M) ::3:: Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private interests are involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations as of public interest.....” In these circumstances, the direction of the learned Single Judge to the Selection Committee to reconsider the assessment of marks for experience (alone) cannot be said to be misplaced. Consequently, upholding the impugned order, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeals have since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( MUKUL MUDGAL ) August 9th, 2010. CHIEF JUSTICE `kk'