Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) These two intra -court appeals, directed against the same order dated 21.01.2008 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition (CWP No. 3625/2005) preferred by the contesting respondent, involving similar questions on the same set of facts, have been finally heard at this stage; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has upheld the challenge made by the respondent Dr. Rakesh Bhandari (the writ petitioner) to the selection of the appellant of SAW No. 33/2008 Pawan Kumar Paliwal for dealership of the retail outlet of the appellant of SAW No. 616/2009 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ('BPCL') at "Kelwa (NH -8)", Rajsamand, with the findings that there had been arbitrariness and extraneous considerations prevailing in award of marks by the Selection Committee; and while setting aside the impugned selection of the appellant Pawan Kumar Paliwal, has directed that the writ petitioner Dr. Rakesh Bhandari, standing next in merit, be awarded the dealership of the outlet in question with execution of agreement in his favour. Aggrieved, the successful candidate and the petroleum company have preferred these appeals essentially with the submissions that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on irrelevant considerations and has not been justified in interfering with the selection in question.
(2.) The facts and background aspects relevant for the issues involved in these appeals could be noticed in brief as follows: On 10.02.2005, the appellant BPCL issued an advertisement for appointment of dealers at several of its outlets. The writ petitioner Dr. Rakesh Bhandari and the other appellant Pawan Kumar Paliwal offered their candidature, with several other aspirants, for the aforesaid outlet at Kelwa (NH -8), mentioned at item No. 79 in the advertisement; they were interviewed on 11.06.2005 by the Selection Committee comprising of three members; and the result was declared the same day wherein the appellant Pawan Kumar Paliwal was placed at merit No. I with 86.9 percent marks whereas the writ petitioner Dr. Rakesh Bhandari was placed at merit No. 2 with 85.1 percent marks.
(3.) Aggrieved and dissatisfied with such an unfavourable result, the writ petitioner Dr. Rakesh Bhandari filed the writ petition (wherefrom have arisen these appeals) while alleging that the selection process had been arbitrary and unfair where he was kept marginally lower and the appellant Pawan Kumar Paliwal was deliberately awarded higher marks. In order to substantiate his allegations of unfairness and arbitrariness in the award of marks, the writ petitioner particularly referred to the facts that under the same advertisement, the appellant Pawan Kumar had also offered his candidature for another outlet mentioned at item No. 29 in the advertisement, having location at Neemuch Road, Chittorgarh; and, in the interviews held on 03.06.2005 in relation to the said outlet at Neemuch Road, the appellant Pawan Kumar was awarded much lower marks than the marks as awarded to him for the selection in question for Kelwa outlet.;