Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Aniruddha Bose, J.
Mr. Olive Ghosh
Vs.
Indian Oil corporation Ltd. (MD) Ors.
W.P. No. 4568(W) of 2012, CAN No. 3086 of 2012, CAN No. 8280 of 2012
Decided On: 12th March, 2013
PETROL RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP SELECTION - INDIAN OIL CORPORATION - REASSESSMENT OF MARKS AWARDED TO PETITIONER - LEGALITY - PERMISSIBILITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - VALIDITY OF MERIT PANEL - RECASTING - RELEVANT PROVISIONS - INTERPRETATION - EFFECT - FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, one of the applicants for selection as a dealer to a retail dealership outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation, challenged the reassessment of marks awarded to him by the oil company, which resulted in the respondent no. 7 attaining the top position in the panel.
Finding of the Court:
1. The oil company was within its power to re-evaluate the assessment of the petitioner's experience based on a complaint received alleging faulty selection process. 2. The petitioner's experience was reassessed on the reasoning that it was not possible for him to function as manager at the retail outlet simultaneously with his participation in the post-graduate programme in retail management. 3. The oil company deducted from his experience period the entire length of time he had been pursuing the postgraduate programme. 4. There was no suppression of material fact by the petitioner as he had disclosed that he was working as a manager for Gopal Traders and that he had undertaken a retail management course. 5. The petitioner had come forward with a reasonable explanation of devoting sufficient time to a retail outlet. 6. There was no pre-evolved criteria to guide assessment of experience of individual candidates, and it would be impermissible to evolve such criteria after obtaining disclosure from a candidate as regards his nature and manner of gathering experience. 7. The petitioner did not have an enforceable legal right to demand a fair selection process, but he could challenge the legality of his claim if he was subjected to a wrongful evaluation process.
Issues: 1. Whether it was permissible on the part of the oil company to re-evaluate the marks awarded to the petitioner? 2. Whether such reevaluation was carried out or not in a proper manner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. It is permissible for a selection body to reverify their own assessment of a particular candidate, if complaint is received alleging faulty selection process, unless of course, such exercised is expressly prohibited. 2. Reassessment of marks awarded to the petitioner was not permissible as there was no pre-evolved criteria to guide assessment of experience of individual candidates and it would be impermissible to evolve such criteria after obtaining disclosure from a candidate as regards his nature and manner of gathering experience.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order which had been communicated to the petitioner by the letter dated 23rd February 2012 was quashed. The respondent oil company was directed to complete the selection process on the basis of the subsisting merit list.
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.:-
1. In this writ petition, dispute is over selection of a dealer to a retail dealership outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation (the oil company) on Jessore road near the Kolkata Airport Gate No. 1. Advertisement inviting application for this vacancy was published on 30th December 2009. The Petitioner and the private respondents, being respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were all applicants thereof. Of these three private respondents, the respondent No.7 has mainly contested this writ petition. The writ petitioner appeared in the interview along with the other candidates, and on evaluation of their candidature on the basis of particulars supplied by the individual applicants, a merit panel was published on 12th May, 2010. The writ petitioner found his position on top of the panel, having been awarded 59 marks. The respondent No. 7 was in the second position, with 58.10. The position of the respondent No. 8 was third, having been awarded 58, whereas the respondent No. 9 had obtained 57.62. In a brochure issued by the oil company on 1st July 2009 pertaining to selection of petrol/diesel retail outlet dealers, the selection procedure on the basis of which points are awarded to the individual has been specified. A copy of this brochure has been made annexure to an application taken out by the respondent no. 7, being CAN No. 3086 of 2012, which has been marked “P-13”.
2. There are certain minimum eligibility criteria prescribed in the said brochure, which the petitioner and the private respondents appear to have fulfilled. Further, eight parameters have been laid down, providing for maximum marks to be awarded in respect of individual applicants against each of them. As per the prescribed procedure, applicants are individually marked on the basis of their qualification, experience and/or performance against each of these parameters, and the merit panel was prepared on the basis of total computation of marks obtained by them against each of these eight heads. These parameters have been disclosed in clause 13.1.1 of the brochure. The application, being CAN No. 3086 of 2012 was filed for vacating an interim order passed in this matter on 6th March,, 2012, which was subsequently directed to be extended. By an order passed on 11th May, 2012, that application was directed to be treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition. The writ petitioner has filed affidavit-in-reply to affidavit. The table contained in the said Clause 13.1.1 specifies:-
Sr. No. Parameter Maximum Marks:
Individuals including
partnerships Maximum Marks: Non-Individual Entities
a Capability to provide
land and 35 35
b infrastructure/ facilities Capability to provide finance 25 25
c Educational
Qualifications 15 0
d Capability to generate
Business 10 25
e Age 4 4
f Experience 4 4
g Business
ability/Acumen 5 7
h Personality 2 0
Total 100 100
3. In this case at the initial stage, the break-up of the 59 marks awarded to the petitioner comprised of 29 marks under the head “capability to provide finance”. For “educational qualification”, awarded marks were 12. Against the head “age”, he obtained 2 whereas in respect of “capability to generate business”, 10 marks were awarded to him. In respect of “experience”, he was awarded the maximum marks, being 4, and under the next head, “business ability/acumen” again he obtained 4 marks. For “Personality”, he scored 2. The respondent No. 7 was his main rival in relation to the selection process, and in this proceeding, reassessment of the marks awarded to the petitioner resulted in alteration of the merit list, with respondent No. 7attaining the top position in the panel after such reassessment. This exercise of reassessment by the oil company has been assailed by the petitioner. The respondent No. 7 under the said heads was awarded 24.60, 15, 4, 7.53, 4, 2 and 0.67 marks respectively, bringing his total to 58.10.
4. Main dispute in this writ petition is over award of marks to the petitioner under the head exper
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
