PHULJHARI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with a prayer to declare the petitioner as number one candidate for awarding retail outlet dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation at By Pass Road, Chapra town on the basis of performance and the marks given by the members and to appoint her as such after setting aside the dealership granted in favour of respondent No. 4.

(2.) The Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation') published an advertisement on 23-2-93 for the physically handicapped candidates for appointment of retail dealership at Chapra By Pass Road. Residents of the five districts including the district of Chapra could apply for the same. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 submitted their applications for the same among others. Both of them were called for interview which took place on 30-8-95. The interview was conducted by a body constituted by respondent No. 4 which consists of the Chairman and two members. The Chairman and the two members jointly interviewed other candidates and each one of them allotted marks to the various candidates on separate mark sheets which are totalled up, and the total marks is treated to be the marks allotted to each candidate. Respondent No. 3 (Shamim Hashmi), was one of the members. Results were published in which the petitioner figured at serial No. 2, and respondent No. 4 figured at serial No. 1, and was, therefore, awarded the dealership in question.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned selection, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 3 (Shamim Hashmi), is guilty of interpolations in the marks allotted to respondent No. 4. On account of the accretions made to the marks allotted to respondent No. 4 much after the date of interview and much after the results had been finally published, which really gave a fillip to his case, and consequently went over the head of the petitioner. He has annexed to the writ petition photo copies of some of the mark sheets which are summarised herebelow. According to him, the interview took place on 30-8-95, and following were the marks allotted to him by respondent No. 3 on the various dates which reflect the position before and after the interpolation : Rsp. No.4 Marks alloteed on 30-8-95, before the interpolationPersonality Business Ability, Salesmanship (Max.30)Capability to arrange Fin.and capacity to prove facilities(Max.20)Full time working dealer (Max.30)General assessment and extra curricular activities. (Max.20)Total Marks (Max.100) 2515251580 Resp. No.4 Accretions caused to his marks by over-writings by Shamim Hashmi on the interview sheet dt. 30-8-95 itself.Personality Business Ability, SalesmanshipCapacity to arrange Fin. and capability to prove facilitiesFull time working dealerGeneral assessment and extra curricular activities.Total Marks 2518281586 3.1. Learned counsel submitted that on account of such accretions made by respondent No. 3 to the marks of respondent No. 4, he got higher marks than the petitioner and was, therefore, adjudged the best candidate. In other words, in his submission, the accretions made by respondent No. 3 to the marks allotted to respondent No. 4 was wholly mala fide and, if ignored, would promote the petitioner to the first position in the select list.