IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 5448 of 2008
Indradeo Ram ...... Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited & ors. ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
For the Respondents : M/s V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate
A.N. Gupta, Birendra Kumar, Advocates
th
04/Dated: 14 July, 2011
1.
The present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the
petitioner has not been selected for L.P.G. distributorship by the Interview
Committee, constituted by the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not
been given L.P.G. distributorship though the petitioner is an eligible
candidate for appointment as a distributor. Other similarly situated
candidates have been given L.P.G. distributorship, but, the petitioner’s case
has not been considered by the Screening Committee, constituted by the
respondents. The petitioner has appeared before the Interview Committee
at Jamshedpur. The result of the interview has also not been published.
There was also reinterview of certain candidates and as per the bifurcation
of marks, as stated in paragraph 16 of the memo of the petition, the
petitioner has secured enough marks for grant of L.P.G. distributorship,
therefore, the respondents may be directed to grant L.P.G. distributorship to
the petitioner.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted
that detailed counter affidavit has been filed, wherein, it is stated that the
petitioner has not secured enough marks in comparison with other
candidates and, therefore, the case of the petitioner has not been
considered. Moreover, the petitioner had obtained 24.9 marks, less than the
marks secured by first, second and third empanelled candidates. As per the
policy decision taken by the respondents, the candidate who had secured
less than 5% marks, secured by the first candidate, there names will be
referred to the Screening Committee for further scrutiny on 11th February,
2004. The petitioner was empanelled in the third list. The candidates of the
first and second lists having much higher marks than the petitioner. In
2
paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit, the details of the candidates
and the policy decision has been referred. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the respondents that there is no arbitrariness in selection of the
candidates. Initially, the candidates were interviewed by the Interview
Committee and, thereafter, by Screening Committee. Further, there is
scrutiny of the marks, obtained by the candidates. Twice, the close eye has
watched the selection proceedings and, thereafter, final list has been
prepared. Moreover, L.P.G. distributorship is a contract to be entered into
between the parties and there is no compulsion in the contract and,
therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ
petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:
(i) It appears that the respondents had published an advertisement
for Liquified Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) distributorship on 18th October,
2007 (Corrigendum on 11th March, 2008) for Daltonganj.
(ii) It further appears that the interview was conducted on 16th
October, 2008 by the Interview Committee, which was nominated by
the competent authority of respondent no. 1.
(iii) It also appears from the facts of the case that total seventeen
candidates, including the petitioner, had participated in the interview.
(iv) The first candidate was given 27.7 marks, second candidate had
secured 26.7 marks and third candidate had secured 26.0 marks and
the petitioner had secured 24.9 marks.
(v) It further appears that as per the policy decision taken by the
respondents, the candidate who had secured less than 5% marks,
secured by the first candidate, there names will be referred to the
Screening Committee for further scrutiny. As the petitioner had
secured 24.9 marks and the first candidate had secured 27.7 marks,
the difference between these two marks is approximately 10% and,
therefore, his name was not referred to the Screening Committee as
per the policy decision. Even otherwise also, once the decision has
been taken by Interview Committee, this Court will not interfere in
the said decision, as this Court is not sitting in the appeal upon the
Interview Committee. The marks obtained by the candidates cannot
be altered by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the
3
Constitution of India. The result was also displayed on the notice
board as well as on the website of the Corporation. The marks
obtained by the petitioner are much lesser in comparison with other
candidates and, hence, the petitioner has not been given L.P.G.
distributorship.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this
writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
Ajay