RAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited issued notice for appointment of retail outlet dealers at various places in the State of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh including Baddi, District Solan in the category of Scheduled Castes. The estimated sale potential of MS/HSD of the site was fixed at 30/250 KL per month. The appointment of the dealer was to be governed by the procedure for selection of diesel petrol retail outlet dealers on 15.09.2008(for short, 'the guidelines') in which the criteria for allocation of marks on various parameters in respect of individual applicants was laid down which is reproduced as under:-

(2.) There were many applicants in the fray. They were interviewed on 26/27.07.2010 & 4.08.2010,in which respondent No. 8 was at Sr. No. 1 and petitioner was at Sr. No. 2, having scored 90.58 and 89.63 marks respectively. Respondent No. 8 was awarded 15 marks for the educational qualification. Petitioner was awarded 4.82 marks in the tied up volume whereas respondents No. 7 and 9 were awarded 1.86 and 3.21 marks in the tied up volume respectively and as such their total marks were 85.07 and 87.86. The petitioner made a complaint in respect of 'Educational qualification' of the Ist candidate i.e. Suman Rai whereas respondent No. 7 made a complaint about the marks awarded on account of 'Tied up volume'.

(3.) The case set up by the petitioner was that Suman Rai(respondent No. 8) was wrongly given 15 marks because she was not a post graduate in the discipline mentioned in clause 1(i) rather she was a graduate only, therefore, she should have been awarded 12 marks. On the other hand, complaint of respondent No. 7 was that tied up volume has not been properly assessed. Thus, keeping in view the respective complaints, the company constitute a new L2 Committee with members namely, Subhash Bhakta, Manoj Chawla and Anoop Saxena and High Level Review committee was constituted comprising members V.N.Tandon and R.D.S.Dhillon. In the proceedings of the L2 Committee it was held that respondent No. 8 had wrongly been given 15 marks though she was entitled to 12 marks and the marks in respect of tied up volume were wrongly calculated because the candidates had to be given full 5 marks in case of tied up volume if it was upto 1/3rd or higher. According to the said provision, the tied up volume in this case was above 93 kilo litres being 1/3rd of 280 kilo litres i.e. 30 kilo litres of petrol and 250 kilo litres of diesel together. Accordingly, the selection list was made in which respondent No. 7 was brought at Sr. No. 1 with 92.92%, respondent No. 9 at Sr. No. 2 with 92.33% and the petitioner at Sr. No. 3 with 90.08% after giving 5 marks in the Tied up Volume. The said decision of the L2 Committee was upheld by the High Level Review Committee on 7.10.2010. Still aggrieved, the petition has been filed to challenge the select panel of 3.12.2010(Annexure P-6) and 7.10.2010(Annexure P-7) i.e. marks given by the L2 Committee and approved by the Review Committee. During the course of hearing, it transpired that respondent No. 7 is not in contest as he has not been considered by the Oil Company because of a CBI case registered against him and even otherwise, it is stated, that respondent No. 7 has expired. Be that as it may, the contest is now between the petitioner and respondent No. 9.