IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3818 of 2007 UMESH PRASAD SON OF SRI RAM BISHESH PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. BHARTHOULI, P.S. AURANGABAD, DISTIRCT AURANGABAD. Versus 1. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., 17, JAMSHEDJEE TATA ROAD, MUMBAI THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. LOKNAYAK JAIPRAKASH BHAWAN, 6TH FLOOR, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA. 3. SHARDA RAM SON OF MEGHU RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHUA, P.S. MANJHAR, PS. HASPURA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. ----------- 2 10/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Corporation. The petitioner was compelled to file the present writ application because the selection committee in an arbitrary and malafide manner has defeated the superior claim of the petitioner to be placed at serial no. 1 or atleast at par with the selected candidate i.e. private respondent no. 3. Short facts are that an advertisement was issued in the daily news paper “Hindustan” on 11.8.2005 inviting applications for grant of retail outlet dealership in the location known as “Khudwan” in the district of Aurangabad. The dealership was reserved for Scheduled Caste category. Based - 2 - on the response of various eligible candidates, interview was held and the selection committee constituting of three members have come to award marks to all the candidates within the various parameters on which the candidates had to be judged. The petitioner’s stand is that he has been deliberately given lower marks in the category of “Business acumen” and “overall assessment” vis-à-vis respondent no. 3 to defeat his claim. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has filed counter affidavit and has denied such accusations. Their stand is that the selection committee has made comparative analysis based on various parameters on which the candidates had to be judged. This is further based on the declaration and inputs given by the candidates in their application forms coupled with their performance before the members of the interview board and thereafter a final merit list is prepared. He further relies on a decision rendered in the similar circumstance in the case of Raj Keshwar Prasad Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited reported in 2010(1) BBCJ, 69. - 3 - The ratio laid down in the said case applies even to the present case. Mere hunch of the petitioner without any material does not make out a case for interference. The assessment and the capability coupled with the performance of such candidate before the expert body cannot be re-enacted within the confine of a Court room and that too in a writ application. The expert bodies know their job well and in absence of any specific allegation of malafide or otherwise, no case for interference is made out. This writ application is thus dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)