- (1.) The petitioner, who was an applicant for allotment of LPG distributorship at Pehowa, has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the result dated 21.11.2009 (Annexure P-6) ranking the petitioner at Sr. No. 2 and respondent No. 5 at Sr. No. 1 and further rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner vide communication dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure P-28).
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Bharat Petroleum Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') issued advertisement for allotment of LPG distributorship at Pehowa on 9.11.2007. The petitioner as well as respondents No. 5 were the applicants. When the result was declared on 21.11.2009, respondent No. 5 was was ranked first, whereas the petitioner second. The criteria for awarding marks under different heads had been laid down in the advertisement. In the marks to be awarded on the basis of documents annexed with the applications, both got 75 out of 89. Respondent No. 5 was given march over the petitioner while awarding marks in interview. She having no experience at all was granted higher marks for business acumen, as compared to the petitioner who had rich experience in the line including petroleum trade. He further submitted that in the application filed by respondent No. 5, she claimed one year's experience as a Resident Medical Officer in different hospitals, whereas that fact was wrong as it was nothing else but internship training completed by respondent No. 5, which was part of the MBBS course before awarding the degree. In case any information is provided wrong in the application, it was otherwise liable to be rejected. It was with great difficulty by filing applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the RTI Act') to different authorities that the petitioner could get the information and copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5. Even the certificate annexed by respondent No. 5 with her application showing the experience as Resident Medical Officer could not be verified as the supporting records in all the hospitals were not available. With the aforesaid material, the petitioner earlier filed CWP No. 17430 of 2010 in this court, which was disposed of on 27.9.2010 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation, in view of the material received in response to the application filed under the RTI Act. The additional complaint so filed was rejected vide communication dated 30.5.2011 and immediately thereafter Letter of Intent was issued in favour of respondent No. 5.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once respondent No. 5 did not have any experience whatsoever, award of 1.50 marks to her on that account were totally uncalled for. Respondent No. 5 got only one mark above the petitioner in total, as she secured 96.50 marks, whereas the petitioner got 95.50 marks. Further award of 3 marks for business ability/acumen was also arbitrary for the reason that respondent No. 5 had merely passed out her MBBS examination, whereas the petitioner had rich experience of 12 years in various fields including dealing with petroleum products. In fact, in that column, respondent No. 5 was given one mark above the petitioner, otherwise in all other fields both secured the same number. It was further submitted that the experience required was of minimum one year in any of the fields and not total of one year in all fields. In the case in hand, respondent No. 5 had total experience of one year working as an Intern in three different hospitals, hence, otherwise not fulfilling the conditions laid down in the advertisement. As per the information received from Medical Council of India, Medical Graduate can be appointed as Medical Officer only after completing his MBBS course and internship of one year is compulsory training, which is part of the curriculum of MBBS, without completion of which the degree cannot be awarded.;