C.W.P. No.10791 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10791 of 2009 Date of Decision.12.03.2010 Ajay Goswami ........Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, Tel Bhawan, New Delhi and others ....Respondents Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.P. Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate for respondent No.5. 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) 1. The petitioner challenges the exclusion of his candidature in the selection for awarding dealership for LPG distributorship. The advertisement had set out criteria for selection and the application forms themselves had sufficient provision for filling in all the details that were necessary for relative grading and awarding of marks to candidates. The petitioner was excluded from consideration by virtue of the fact that there were persons, who had higher marks than the petitioner. The petitioner had been C.W.P. No.10791 of 2009 -2- awarded with 75.3 marks, while the 3rd respondent, who was the selected candidate had been awarded with 96.5 marks. The selection was to be made from a panel of three candidates and as per the information disclosed through the 2nd respondent's statement, two other candidates, who had been drawn up in the panel were respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2. The petitioner points out that the marks have not been properly awarded and therefore, he has been kept out of consideration. As regards the marks that were to be assigned for experience, the petitioner had given only in his application that he had experience in direct sale/home delivery products in M/s Amar Electronics for a period of one year and five months. The petitioner had been awarded with 1.3 marks. The contention of the petitioner was that the Interview Committee had made a mistake in assuming that the marks were to be awarded out of 2 marks and if only they had taken correctly the view that the total marks that could be awarded were 4 makrs, the petitioener would have been awarded higher marks. I had called for the production of marksheets awarded by the Interview Committee and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had produced the computer print out of the marks awarded. As per the computer print out, it is seen that the marks awarded by the three persons in the interview panel to the petitioner for experience were 1, 1.5 and 1.5, which was averaged as 1.3. The petitioner still has a grievance that what is produced is only a computer print out and not the original itself. Learned counsel appearing for the C.W.P. No.10791 of 2009 -3- Corporation points out that it has been signed by the persons in the interview panel and the authenticity of the document cannot be impeached. The apprehension that the petitioner has, that he had been wrongly graded, assuming the maximum marks to be awarded for experience was only 2 marks is, in my view, unacceptable since the same evaluation sheet bears out that the Interview Committee has awarded 3 marks for a person in Sr. No.1, again 3 marks for a person in Sr. No.17 and 3.5 marks for a person in Sr. No.24A. The Interview Committee was definitely conscious of the fact that the total marks that could be awarded were more than 2, for otherwise the awarding of marks with 3 or 3.5 to any one of the candidates would not have been possible at all. 3. The petitioner still states that he had not been properly awarded with marks for capability to provide infrastructure as on the date of application, which sets out a requirement of the dimensions of a plot for LPG godown. The entry for column 13B is LPG showroom and that the marks awarded for the said specification were also inadequate. The total marks that could be awarded under this category were 35 marks out of which 25 marks maximum could be awarded for suitable land for godown and 10 marks for showroom. There were relative grading of lower marks of persons, who did not own any such property on that date to the required specifications but, who had only an agreement of sale on the date or persons, who could arrange for the property for which the marks for the godown were 18 and 10 respectively and for the showroom, 7 and 5 respectively. The petitioner had filed along C.W.P. No.10791 of 2009 -4- with the application, ownership details with reference to the property, both for godown and showroom. The grievance of the petitioner is that against the specification of the dimension of plot to be 27 m x 26.15 m, the petitioner had given the area of land as 2 acres with 400 feet at Ambala-Chandigarh Highway as available for godown and the very same property falling within its adjunct as available for LPG showroom. The petitioner had been awarded with 10 marks out of 25 for the godown and 5 marks out of 10 for the showroom. Although the title deed had been produced showing ownership, the justification for award of less marks than the maximum, as contended by learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent is that the application form required the applicant to give the linear measurement of the property but the petitioner had merely given particulars of the area as 2 acres with 400 feet frontage along Ambala-Chandigarh road. This specification was inadequate for a godown. There had to be sufficient space between the highway and the location as per safety requirements and the information provided was not adequate to award him higher marks. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that even the entries in the jamabandi relied on by the petitioner allowed for the petitioner an entitlement to about 4 kanals and therefore higher marks could not have been awarded. 4. The total extent of property covered under the sale deeds for 8 bighas of which one document stands in the name of the petitioner himself and the another documents stands in the name of his parents. The petitioner claims that he attached the affidavit C.W.P. No.10791 of 2009 -5- of his parents also stating that they belong to a one family unit and that they had no objection to the property being offered as a godown. On an ultimate consideration, it could only be seen that the award of lower marks have been made on the basis that the petitioner had not given specific linear measurements. If the property had been merely referred with reference to area then probably the Oil Company would be justified in saying that it was not possible to ascertain the specification as it had been set out in the advertisement. The specification in the advertisement is that with reference to a godown, which was required to be 27mx26.15m and with reference to LPG showroom, the measurement was required to be 3mx4.5m. If in the application form, there is a reference to the fact that a property has frontage of 400 feet along the main road, which means that the other dimensions must have been more than 220 feet, for that would make 2 acres of land. The specification woud, therefore, remain fulfilled for the petitioner's claim as well. The award of 25 marks appears to be, therefore, incorrect and he would have been entitled to a consideration of full marks. If against 35 marks, the petitioner had been awarded another 20 marks, he would obtain 95.3 marks, which would displace the 5th respondent out of consideration from the panel. 5. The petitioner shall have no immediate relief of an award of any dealership if the consideration were to be only of one persons out of three. Respondents No.3 and 4 have marks higher than the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner shall have merely the remedy of being placed at No.3 in the panel. For any future C.W.P. No.10791 of 2009 -6- contingency, the petitioner will rank for consideration if both the candidates in the panal go out of reckoning for any reason. 6. Subject to this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 12, 2010 Pankaj*