E JOSHUA LIVINGSTON Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED TRICHY DIVISIONAL OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Masters Degree Holder in Business Management, would contend that he possess enough experience with respect to the operational functions and sale of petroleum products. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 01.03.2009 published by the fourth respect calling upon applications to offer dealership of various outlets, the petitioner submitted his application seeking dealership of the outlet located at Marapalam Junction in the revenue District of Union Territory of Puducherry. THE offer made by the fourth respondent is an open category dealership and the petitioner applied in time on 05.04.2009. THEreafter, the first respondent sent a letter dated 06.10.2009 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the second respondent for an interview on 24.10.2009. THE interview with respect to Marapalam Junction outlet was held on 23.10.2009 and 24.10.2009 in which the petitioner participated along with others. Even according to the petitioner, there were as many as 25 applicants participated in the interview conducted by the second respondent for obtaining the dealership. After interview, on the same day, marks obtained by individual applicants were published. As per the result published by the respondents 1 and 2, the third respondent was awarded 63.47 marks and placed in the first rank and the petitioner was given 62.47 marks and placed in the second rank. According to the petitioner, the difference in the marks secured by him and the third respondent was only 0.70 marks as against the total marks fixed at 65.00.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the second respondent, without proper appreciation, awarded higher marks to the third respondent which he is not entitled to. It is further averred that the petitioner would have been the highest mark holder and he alone should have been chosen for award of the dealership. ACCORDING to the petitioner, 65 marks was segregated into seven categories, which was further divided into sub-headings. The petitioner gave a comparative statement of the marks obtained by him and the third respondent under each category in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contends that the award of higher marks to the third respondent is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the petitioner challenges the selection of the third respondent on the ground that the third respondent was arbitrarily awarded more marks towards (i) capability to provide finance (total 25 marks) (ii) capability to generate business (total 10 marks) and (iii) experience (maximum 4 marks).

(3.) THE third ground of attack made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the category 'experience' is that, the third respondent ought not to have been awarded 3 marks as against 4 marks. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the third respondent had produced a letter from one Anapoorani Service Station to show that he did an internship at the said service station to learn the trade/day to day business operations of the bus company and assisted the operation of the retail outlet, as per the reply furnished to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the Assistant Inspector of Labour-I, Labour Department had stated that during the relevant point of time, the third respondent was not working as an apprentice under the said Annapoorani Service Station at Thiruvannamalai. As the third respondent did not have any experience, as required, he should not be given three marks under the category 'experience. THErefore, on all these three grounds, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the marks awarded in favour of the third respondent has to be reduced and the petitioner ought to have been awarded the dealership.