IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. <<>> :: O R D E R :: Mrs. Lajwanti Chandel Vs. Union of India & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3841/2005. Date of Order :: 12th December 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Kumar ] Mr. Vijay Bishnoi ], for the respondents. ..... BY THE COURT: By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the award of dealership to the respondent No. 4 of a retail outlet of the respondent No. 2 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at village Chandangaon NH 15 via Pokran to Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer that was reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women). In response to the advertisement dated 10.02.2005 (Annex.P/1) as issued by the respondent No. 2 inviting applications for award of dealership in relation its various outlets, the petitioner was one of the applicants in relation to the aforesaid outlet at village 1 Chandangaon. According to the petitioner, she was the most qualified amongst the five candidates who appeared in the selection interviews for the said outlet dealership for herself having the educational qualifications of MA (Prev.), LL.B., ITI in English Stenography Diploma and practical experience of five years as a practicing lawyer; and, the petitioner maintains, she was the right and proper candidate for selection. However, the petitioner contends, the respondents have proceeded to award the dealership to the respondent No.4, who was lesser qualified being only a Graduate, for extraneous reasons and considerations, particularly because she belonged to the political party in power in the Centre and contested the Assembly elections as a candidate of the said political party. The petitioner submits that the selection of respondent No.4 being entirely unfair, deserves to be set aside. The respondents have opposed the writ petition with the submissions, inter alia, that for the purpose of selection of dealers for the different locations, the academic qualification was not the sole basis, but certain other qualifications were also required to be fulfilled; and that the assessment of the suitability of the candidates were adjudged as per the criteria mentioned in the advertisement. The respondents have pointed out that for the location in question, 9 candidates submitted their applications but only 5 appeared before the Selection Committee who proceeded to adjudge the suitability of 2 the each candidate as per the fixed parameters mentioned in clause – 8 of the advertisement Annex. P/1 while the members of the Selection Committee awarded independent marks to the candidates without consulting each other and the marks so awarded to individual candidates were aggregated; and the candidate who secured the highest marks was placed at serial number 1 in the merit panel. According to the respondents, the petitioner was awarded maximum marks for educational qualification but the respondent No.4 secured maximum marks as per her overall performance and hence, the respondent No.4 was found to be the best and suitable amongst all the candidates as per the prescribed parameters. While referring to the averments as taken in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been denied fair consideration by the respondents; that the respondents neither fixed the relevant norms nor proceeded in fair and reasonable manner; and that the respondents have failed to show as to how the respondent No. 4 was found to be more suitable and capable and as to why the petitioner was not selected despite having the highest educational qualifications. On the submissions as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is unable to find any reason or cause to consider interference in this matter. The suggestion as cursorily made by the petitioner in the writ petition that some favourtism has prevailed and undue favour has been extended to the respondent 3 No.4 for her having been a candidate in the Assembly elections on behalf of the political party hardly makes out a specific case of mala fides against the respondents. Merely because the respondent No.4 was a candidate in the Assembly elections as a member of a particular political party, it cannot be assumed ipso facto that grant of dealership to her is not based on merit considerations. Except making a bald statement about the respondent No. 4 having contested the Assemble elections as a candidate of a political party, nothing specific has been stated in the petition so as to even consider that the selection in question suffers from unfairness. The petitioner has repeatedly harped on the ground that she was the candidate carrying the highest and best educational qualifications and for that reason, ought to have been awarded the dealership in question. The submission is lacking in strength. No such rule or guideline has been pointed out whereby or whereunder the award of dealership was to be made in preference to a person having the highest educational qualifications. The aspect of educational qualifications had of course been one of the several factors taken into consideration while adjudging the suitability of the candidates but then, there had been several other factors for consideration including those relating to the capability to generate business, age, experience, business ability/acumen and personality; and ultimately the Selection Committee has adjudged the merit standings of the candidates on the basis of overall performance 4 while awarding separate marks in relation to the aforesaid factors. The fact of the matter had been that the petitioner was indeed awarded full 15 marks in relation to the component of educational qualifications whereas the selected candidate, respondent No.4, was awarded 10 marks in that relation. However, even when the petitioner was awarded maximum marks towards educational qualifications, her marks in relation to other components could not stand in competition, not only with respondent No.4 but even with another candidate, Kumari Mamta Shorgar who was placed at serial number 2 in the said selections. The petitioner, in fact, stood only at serial number 3. The petitioner does not appear correct in the submission that merely for her having highest educational qualifications, dealership in question ought to have been awarded to her. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the respondent Company, in response to the queries of the Court, has placed for perusal the comparative statement of marks as awarded to the candidates who appeared in the interviews in the selection in question and it appears appropriate to reproduce the relevant components and the marks awarded therefor to the first three candidates as under:- 5 Name of the candidate Educational Qualificatio n Max 15 Capability to generate business (Max. marks 10) Tied up Project Overall volume report assess- Max 5 Max 3 ment Max 2 Age Max 4 Exper ience Max 4 Business ability/ accumen Max 5 Person ality Max 2 Total Marks scored by the candidate Total marks applicable for the candidte/ category Scored marks as a percent age of applicable marks Inter-se Priority marks – DEF / PMP (max. 40 marks G. Tota l Smt. Sushma Barupal .10.0 5.0 2.7 1.5 .2.0 .2.0 .2.8 .1.5 .27.5 .40.0 .68.8 .0.0 .68.8 Kumari Mamta Shorgar .13.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 .0.8 .1.0 .1.0 .25.8 .40.0 .64.6 .0.0 .64.6 Smt. Lajwanti Chandel .15.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 .4.0 .0.0 .1.0 .1.0 .24.0 .40.0 .60.0 .0.0 .60.0 This Court is unable to find any unfairness or illegality if the Selection Committee has chosen to award in total 60% marks to the petitioner while awarding lesser marks to her towards the components of her capability to generate business, experience, business acumen, personality in comparison to those awarded to the respondent No. 4. Ultimately, the overall suitability of the candidate was to be adjudged by the Selection Committee and merely because the petitioner was awarded lesser marks on certain scores, it cannot be assumed that the Committee has not objectively considered each of the candidates. This Court would not enter into the correctness of the marks awarded to the candidates that was essentially a matter for consideration of the Selection Committee. 6 In the ultimate analysis, this Court does not find any reason to consider any interference in this matter for the respondents cannot be said to have acted unfairly in selecting the respondent No.4 as the dealer for the outlet in question. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/ 7