ANAND KUMAR PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Devashis Baruah, Ms. Nirmala Upadhay and Mr. Bithika Das, Advocates for the appellant.Mr. KN Choudhury, Senior Advocate, Mr. HRA Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. I Ahmed & Mr. MR Islam, Advocates for the respondents. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 3.6.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant's WP(C) No.431/2013.

(2.) Facts in short are these. On 14.9.2011, Respondent No.2 ­ Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited published an advertisement inviting applications for appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer at Lakhipur, Ward No.4, District Goalpara. In response to this advertisement, appellant and respondent No.5 submitted their applications which were processed for evaluation as per guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet Dealers. Both appellant and Respondent No.5 were then also called for interview on 31.8.2012. According to the statement of performance declared by Respondent No.1, Respondent No.5 secured 94.35 out of total 100 marks whereas appellant secured 93.08 marks. The name of Respondent No.5 was, therefore, shown at Sl. No.1 in the select list and that of appellant at Sl. No.2. Dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him, the appellant filed a complaint to the Grievance Redressal Forum of Respondent No.1 which was duly investigated but no change of marks was reported vide communication dated 21.1.2013. In the result, Respondent No.1 appointed Respondent No.5 as Dealer of Retail Outlet, in question. Aggrieved, the appellant filed WP(C) No.431/2013 on the ground that his candidature was not properly evaluated.

(3.) The main thrust of argument of appellant was that 4 marks under description "Fixed and Movable Assets" of parameter "Finance" and sub -head "Financially Sound" of the guidelines were wrongly denied to him. The appellant submitted that had Respondent No.1 awarded 4 marks to him, his marks would have been much more than Respondent No.5. Respondent No.1 in reply denied that any improper evaluation was done. Respondent No.1 submitted that marks were awarded strictly in accordance with the guidelines by the concerned Committees and since after evaluation, Respondent No.5 was found to have secured highest marks, he was appointed as Dealer of the Retail Outlet. Respondent No.5 in his separate reply defended his appointment as Dealer. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet Dealer and norms for evaluating the candidates as well as documents brought on record, disagreed with the appellant and dismissed his petition. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal.