AMALORPAVAM Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed for declaring the action of the first respondent/Indian Oil Corporation Limited in placing the second respondent in the first position for the award of Indane Gas Distributorship for Tabaram area as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to place the petitioners in the first position and award the Indane Gas Distributorship for Tabaram area to the petitioners.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of writ petition are as follows: THE first respondent/Indian Oil Corporation Limited floated an advertisement on 06.02.2008 calling for applications individually and on partnership basis for Indane Gas Distributorship for Tambaram area and the first petitioner individually and the petitioners 1 and 2 jointly applied for the same. THE first petitioner individually and petitioners 1 and 2 jointly along with other applicants were called for personal interview and duly attended the interview on 27.04.2009. THE interview is followed by declaration of results on the very next day on 25.07.2009, as per which, the second respondent herein was awarded 92 marks and was placed in the first position and the first petitioner in her individual capacity and the petitioners 1 and 2 on partnership basis are awarded 91 and 90 marks and were placed in the second and third position respectively. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioners sent notice and legal notice to the first respondent on 26.07.2009 and 31.07.2009 raising serious grievance against the manner of evaluation and against awarding lesser marks to the petitioners as partners in respect of their capability to provide finance and the same was replied by the first respondent on 15.07.2009, wherein the method of evaluation adopted was for the reasons set out therein fully supported, which has compelled the petitioners to approach this court by way of this present writ petition for the reliefs as stated above.

(3.) THE claim made by the petitioner is seriously opposed by the respondents by firstly questioning the maintainability of this writ petition. THE respondents have by relying upon the judgments of Apex Court and our High Court reported in i)1995 (II) CTC 286 Division Bench of the High Court of Madras V.Chandran Vs. Oil Selection Board and others ii)(2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 681 K.Vinod kumar Vs. S.Palanisamy and others iii)(2010) 1 MLJ 167 M.Senthilkumar Vs. Chairman Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and iV) (2010) 1 MLJ 742 Division Bench of High Court of Madras R.Kaliavani Vs. Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and others opposed the locus-standi of the petitioners to maintain the writ petition mainly on the ground that the petitioners having participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the evaluation criteria method and having become unsuccessful cannot be permitted to raise any complaint against the selection process.