PAWAN KUMAR PALIWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two intra-court appeals, directed against the same order dated 21.1.2008 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition (CWP No. 3625/2005) preferred by the contesting respondent, involving similar questions on the same set of facts, have been finally heard at this stage; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment:

(2.) BY the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has upheld the challenge made by the respondent Dr. Rakesh Bhandari the writ petitioner) to the selection of the appellant of SAW No. 33/2008 Pawan Kumar Paliwal for dealership of the retail outlet of the appellant of SAW No. 616/2009 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ('BPCL') at "Kolwa (NH-8)", Rajsamand, with the findings that there had been arbitrariness and extraneous considerations prevailing in award of marks by the Selection Committee; and, while setting aside the impugned selection of the appellant Pawan Kumar Paliwal, has directed that the writ petitioner Dr. Rakesh Bhandari, standing next in merit, be awarded the dealership of the outlet in question with execution of agreement in his favour. Aggrieved, the successful candidate and the petroleum company have preferred these appeals essentially with the submissions that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on irrelevant considerations and has not been justification interfering with the selection in question.

(3.) IT may be pointed out that at the initial stage, the writ petitioner had impleaded one Shri P. Lohani who was a common member of the Selection Committee in relation to both the outlets at Neemuch Road and Kelwa but later, his name was deleted from the array of parties with the petitioner waiving the allegations of mala fide against him. The appellants herein, by way of separate replies to the writ petition, refuted the allegations of manipulation and arbitrariness in award of marks in the selection in question; and stated their explanations and reasons for variation of marks in relation to the appellant Pawan Kumar in the two interviews.