The Court emphasized that a lawyer holding a license to practice is entitled to explore opportunities outside the legal profession, and that the Court should not interfere in the decision of a corporation unless there are allegations of mala fides or glaring defects in the decision-making process.

1. (Per: Honble the Chief Justice) With the consent of learned Advocates this Appeal is heard and decided today.

2. This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 27th September, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 5795 of 2010*.

3. The subject matter of this litigation is the selection of the appellant by Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation1), for L.P.G. distributorship in Gopalganj District. Pursuant to the advertisement published by the Corporation several persons including the writ petitioner and the appellant applied for such distributorship. The appellant was selected and issued a letter of intent. In the select list, the writ petitioner was at SI. No. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the selection of the appellant, the writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C. No. 5795 of 2010*. According to the writ petitioner the appellant could not have been selected as he did not have requisite experience of dealing in petroleum products. Nevertheless, the appellant was granted 2.5 marks under the head experience giving him an advantage over the petitioner. Had the appellant been not granted that 2.5 marks for experience, it was the petitioner who would have earned the distributorship. The petitioner also claimed that the appellant being a practicing advocate could not have gained experience in petroleum products as claimed by the appellant. Besides, he could not have applied for distributorship till he was holding a license to practice as an Advocate.

4. In support of the petition, the petitioner brought on record certain documents indicating that at the relevant time one Ahmad Ali was the Manager at M/s Gopalganj Petroleum where the appellant claimed to have gained experience as a Manager. Necessarily, the appellant made a false statement that he was a Manager in the M/s Gopalganj Petroleum during the years 2002 to 2005. The certificate issued by the said M/s Gopalganj Petroleum produced on the record of the petition is obviously a false document. The Corporation could not have relied upon such document to hold that the appellant had experience in petroleum products nor could have granted any mark under the head experience.

5. The petition was contested by the appellant. According to the appellant while he was a practicing Advocate he worked at the aforesaid M/s Gopalganj Petroleum as a part time honorary Manager during his spare time and had thus gained enough experience in petroleum products.

6. We are informed that since the receipt of letter of intent from the Corporation the appellant has surrendered his license to practice as an advocate and is concentrating on intended L.P.G. distributorship.

7. The Corporation also has filed counter affidavit and has contested the writ petition. The Corporation denied that the experience certificate produced by the appellant was fake or fafse. That the marks under the head experience was awarded on the basis of his response at the time of interview. After receiving complaint against the selection of the appellant from one Smt. Sweta Singh, the matter was investigated and after due investigation the experience certificate was found to be genuine.

8. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Vimal Kumar Jain V/s. Shri Umesh Narain & Ors. [(2004)2 P.L.J.R. 9] to hold that the appellant could not have applied for L.P.G. distributorship while he was holding a license to practise as an Advocate. The learned Single Judge has also examined the evidence on record to hold that the experience certificate produced by the appellant was not genuine and that it could not have been relied upon by the Corporation. The learned Single Judge went in great details why the said experience certificate could not have been a genuine cartificate On the basis the aforesa. inding the learned Single Judge was please