ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“to declare the Orders passed by the Respondents 2 to 4 vide Ref.No.DSC/SRO/304, dated 20.03.2013 holding that the Petitioner’s selection is not in accordance with the laid down guidelines and consequently canceling the merit panel and proposing to re-conduct interviews, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, non-application of mind and contrary to the guidelines of the 19 Respondent and further direct the Respondents to issue Letter of Intent to the Petitioner.”

2. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6.

Perused the record.

3. The Facts in brief are as follows:

The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an Advertisement dated 30.09.2011 for award of Retail Outlet Dealership in the Hindu and Saakshi Newspapers, petitioner has made an application for Retail Outlet Dealership and Respondent No.1 – Corporation had addressed a letter dated 14.02.2012 asking the petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee for interview at Secunderabad on 07.03.2012.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that after completion of interview, the respondent No.1 – Corporation declared the petitioner as selected candidate and he was awarded ‘94.41’ marks and the 5th Respondent was awarded ‘93.74’ marks. Thereafter upon scrutiny the respondent No.1 issued a letter to the petitioner vide letter, dated 07.12.2012 asking the petitioner to furnish details and also clarify as to why the marks awarded in relation to the parameter "availability of power" should not be taken away and accordingly the merit has to be assessed. To the said query, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 03.01.2013.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid letter, dated 07.12.2012, the 5^th Respondent has made a complaint with regard to the following two aspects:

“(1) that the land offered by the petitioner is a Government land and (2) the land proposed by the petitioner does not have power connection and also a Motor Pump as per the Corporation norms.”

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that on enquiry, the first aspect was found not to be correct and in relation to the second aspect, since the Technical Evaluation Committee awarded 7 out of 8 marks stating that LT line is available adjacent to the land the same cannot be construed as availability of power and therefore, the marks awarded in relation to the availability of power parameter have to be deducted.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 – Corporation by the impugned order, dated 20.03.2013 has declared that subject selections were cancelled and re-interview shall be conducted for all the candidates who have appeared for the interviews. Questioning the said order, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

8. The Chief Regional Manager, HPCL – respondent No.1 filed counter on behalf of respondent No.1 to 4 and 6 stating that in pursuance of the aforesaid notification dated 30.09.2011 interview was conducted on 07.03.2012 and two candidates were selected, wherein the petitioner was empanelled with ‘94.41%’ Marks and respondent No.5 was empanelled with ‘93.74%’ Marks.

9. It is further submitted that the 2^nd empanelled candidate i.e., 5^th Respondent has sent a complaint, dated 05.04.2012 to the Respondent No.1 – Corporation under Grievance Redressal System alleging that the land proposed by the petitioner does not have power connection. Thereafter the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) of the Respondent Corporation visited the site of the Petitioner’s property on 06.02.2012 and awarded 7 marks to the petitioner under the parameter "Availability of Power", stating that LT line is adjacent to the rout.

10. It is further submitted that after receipt of complaint from the 5th Respondent, a Senior Level Officer of the respondent No.1 – Corporation was appointed an Investigatin