K. Kannan, J. - (1.) CM No. 9227 of 2014 Application is allowed, as prayed for. Document Annexure P19 is taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No. 6779 of 2011
(2.) THE writ petition contains a prayer for a mandamus to issue LPG dealership to the petitioner. The petitioner was a scheduled caste candidate who had applied for three different locations pursuant to an advertisement notification and selection held in the year 2009. The selection was by assigning marks as per the scheme set out in the notification. The experience of working in the similar field had relevance for being assigned maximum marks of 4 and in all the three places for which the petitioner had applied, he had lost out by less than 2 marks against the candidate who had been short listed as having obtained higher marks. An earlier round in CWP No. 14482 of 2010 was that he had given adequate proof of the fact that he had been employed by Sunsui Power Controls and had produced an experience certificate that qualified him for being assigned 4 marks against 2 marks which had actually been assigned to him. His contention was that if additional 2 marks had been assigned, as indeed it had been done by the Corporation itself for a location at Doda but who had still not qualified with the highest marks of another candidate, the Corporation was wrong in assigning only 2 marks for the two other sites where this 2 marks would have made difference and secured to him higher position than his nearest rival. The Corporation at that time did not act on the experience certificate though it took a stand that the employer Company did not exist. This court had disposed of the writ petition giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit better proof and make a representation again. The petitioner rest contended with the experience certificate which he had given already and did not improve the situation but though the Corporation found that the Company did exist, it did not find the experience certificate already produced as sufficient to lend credibility to his assertion that he was actually working in the said Company. The rejection of his candidature again was a subject of present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, two different set of circumstances have taken place. One, through an order issued by the court allowing the petitioner to bring additional materials to substantiate the truth of his assertion regarding his employment status and experience, while the Corporation itself put through a fresh selection process for 11 different locations including 2 locations for which the petitioner was biding for after the rejection in one location for Doda where even 4 marks assigned did not help. The petitioner had produced documents before the court pursuant to the opportunity given to him, namely, a bond of agreement which the petitioner had entered into with Sunsui Power Controls on 22.04.2004 where there was a recital that provided that the petitioner as a trainee after undergoing training for a period of 8 weeks would after completion of his B.Tech and showing his B.Tech clearance certificate, he would be appointed (promoted) as Sales Executive/Control Engg. The provisional certificate had been issued on 04.08.2004. This, according to the petitioner, afforded the necessary proof of not merely the existence of the company but also the fact that he had actually secured his appointment.
(3.) THE counsel for the Corporation would point out that the bond agreement contemplated his appointment only after showing his B.Tech certificate and if the provisional certificate itself had been issued only in August 2004, he could not have been granted appointment even before its production in June 2004, as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner would join issue on this response by a submission that although he did not have even the provisional certificate in June 2004, appointment, however, had been given based on the results obtained and posted on the website declaring him as passed. It is possible that the petitioner had really secured appointment, but what is essential for consideration is whether the Corporation could have a justifiable reason for not acting on the documents filed. An explanation of what is offered before the court was not an explanation which was available for the Corporation and, therefore, if there was a mismatch between what could have secured to him as appointment under the bond and when actually the certificate had been issued, there was surely a scope for raising a doubt on his employment and experience status. An act of selection surely involves certain forensic skills but it is not the same thing as delivering of judgment setting out extensive reasons, which is not an act that is expected of a public authority. The reasonableness of the action is what is put to test before a court and not extracting reasons that are penchant for persons trained in law and judgment writing.;