JUDGMENT
Anjani Kumar and Dilip Gupta, JJ.
1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11th January, 2007 by which the representation filed by the petitioner against the placement of Raj Kumar Pandey respondent No. 5 at Serial No. 1 in the panel prepared by the Dealers Selection Committee for Retail Outlet Dealership for the location Mauza-Zeera Basti, district Ballia under the open category has been rejected.
2. An advertisement was published in the newspaper on 20th June, 2004 inviting applications for Retail Outlet for various locations and after scrutinising the application forms submitted by the various candidates, letters were issued to eligible candidates to appear at the interview. The Dealers Selection Committee thereafter prepared a merit panel in which respondent No. 5 was placed at Serial No. 1 while the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the placement of respondent No. 5 at Serial No. 1 and filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 47235 of 2005 for quashing the selection list. This petition was dismissed by this Court by the judgment and order dated 5th July, 2005 with the observations that as the allotment order had not been issued the Corporation shall consider the representation filed by the petitioner namely Sushil Kumar Verma before any allotment order issued.
3. The representation filed by the petitioner was thereafter rejected by the order dated 11th January, 2007 which has been impugned in the present petition.
4. We have heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Tarun Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Sri U. N. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. Notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 has been accepted by the Additional Standing Counsel, Government of India.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the person who was at Serial No. 1 should not have been given any marks for experience in view of the report dated 24th October, 2005. Sri Tarun Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submitted that even if four marks are deducted from the head ‘Experience’ from the total marks awarded to Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, then too he would still obtain higher marks than the petitioner and, therefore, Sri Raj Kumar Pandey should still continue to remain at Serial No. 1. Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 5 has also made similar submissions.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the order dated 11th January, 2005.
7. A perusal of the said order clearly shows that the conclusion arrived at in the report dated 24th October, 2005 regarding the complaint against allotment of four marks towards experience has not been considered. The conclusion arrived at in the report dated 24th October, 2005 is as follows:
Conclusion. – Travelling from Allahabad to Lucknow would take five hours one way on an average. Thereby to and fro journey from Allahabad to Lucknow required ten hours leaving no time for either the attending classes for LL.B. Course or the job as Manager of the gas agency, let alone studying for LL.B. Course. Doing regular course of LL.B. at Lucknow and working in a gas agency as a Manager at Allahabad is physically the not feasible. Also no document like any proof of emoluments given to Sri Pandey, copy of relevant pages of attendance register or any document pertaining to that period signed by Sri Pandey could not be produced. In view of the above claims of working as a Manager in the said Gas agency while simultaneously doing regular LL.B. Course at Lucknow is contradictory and physically not viable.
8. It is, therefore, clear that while deciding the representation filed by the petitioner, this aspect has not been considered at all. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that even if four marks are deducted, then too Sri Raj Kumar Pandey would continue to remain at Serial No. 1. We leave it open to the authority to take an appropriate decision in this matter. The order dated 11th January, 2007, therefore, cannot be sustained.
9. For the reasons stated above, the order dated 11th January, 2007 is quashed. The authority shall take a fresh decision in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.