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: - JUDGEMENT_164_CALHN1_2014.jpg 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.
(3.) MAIN dispute in this writ petition is over award of marks to the petitioner under the head experience, where he scored the maximum. After publication of the merit list, Shyamal Kumar Mondal, one of the applicants had came to this Court alleging arbitrary evaluation of candidature of the petitioner by filing a writ petition, which was registered as W.P. 13336(W) of 2010. In that writ petition, he had also alleged lack of transparency in the evaluation process. Contention of Shyamal Kumar Mondal in that proceeding was that in respect of educational qualification, he obtained highest marks and he ought to have been selected considering his performance against other parameters. No interim order was passed in that writ petition, but direction for filing affidavit had been given. It appears that during the interim period, the respondent No. 7 had made complaint to the oil company in terms of Clause 18 of the prescribed norms over assessment made in respect of the petitioner. The said complaint was made on 17th May, 2010, a copy of which has been made Annexure "P -4" of CAN 3086 of 2012. On receiving such complaint, the oil company sought clarification on certain disclosures made by the petitioner along with his application. In particular, detail was asked for in respect of his disclosure of having completed one and half years full time post -graduate management course (July 2007 -June 2009 session) from the NSHM Centre of Management & Development Studies, Kolkata. The petitioner was also asked to clarify on four issues pertaining to his working as manager in a retail outlet, "Gopal Traders" of the same oil company. In the application format, a copy of which has been annexed as "P1" to the writ petition, column 8 and 9 related to disclosures relating to experience. The questions contained in the application format and the disclosure of the petitioner against these columns were: - "8.Do you have business/selling experience? If yes, give full details: Yes, I am in retail trade of tyres and balleries (Trade license, appointment letter from MRF and Dealership certificate from Exide are attached. 9.Do you have experience of supervision of personnel? If yes, give full details: Yes, I have been working not only as a business man but also as a manager for Gopal Traders a dealer of IOC at Rajarhat (Experience certificate from Gopal Traders and attendance register of Gopal Trading are enclosed)." The copy of the certificate from Gopal Traders has been annexed at page 33 of the writ petition. It is recorded in this certificate that the petitioner has been functioning as the manager of the outlet since 3rd August, 2007. The certificate is dated 29th January 2010, and has been signed by the proprietress of the said firm, Manju Ghosh. In course of hearing before me, it transpired that she is the mother of the petitioner.;