MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) THESE two intra-court appeals, directed against the same order dated 21.1.2008 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:
(2.) 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 "Kolwa (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 justification interfering with the selection in question. The facts and background aspects relevant for the issues involved in these appeals could be noticed in brief as follows: On 10.2.2005, 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 11.6.2005 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. 1 with 86-9 percent marks whereas the writ petitioner Dr. Rakesh Bhandari was placed at merit No. 2 with 85.1 percent marks. 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 3.6.2005 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. The petitioner essentially contended that when the selections were conducted for the same company BPCL, under the same advertisement, for the same category of persons, and on the same criteria and guidelines, it was inexplicable that in relation to the outlet in question at Kelwa (NH-8), the same candidate, i.e., the appellant Pawan Kumar, was awarded higher marks on various parameters than those awarded to him in relation to the outlet at Neemuch road. The writ petitioner referred to various identical items in the respective evaluation sheets for the two outlets aforesaid; and pointed out the particular areas of substantial variation in the marks awarded to the appellant in the two interviews, with higher marks in the interview in question for Kelwa outlet as held on 11.6.2005 than those awarded to him in the interview for Neemuch Road outlet as held on 3.6.2005. While asserting that he was standing higher in merit on all the relevant parameters but was kept marginally lower at the second place, the writ petitioner contended that the selection process had been arbitrary and unfair where the appellant was awarded higher marks with manipulation of the evaluation process in flagrant violation of rules of fairness; and seeking intervention of the Court, prayed for the following reliefs:- "A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to re-evaluate the particular retail outlet dealership at serial No. 79 of the advertisement while keeping in consideration the guidelines to be followed strictly. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the result declared by the respondent company as Annexure-4 may kindly be quashed and set- aside and consider the candidature of the petitioner afresh by keeping in consideration the application already submitted by all the applicants. C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to follow the criteria and parameters laid down in the guidelines (Annex. 3) strictly and effectively. D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the respondent No. 3 on the same footing as that of Annexure-5 and the petitioner's evaluation may be assessed by considering his experience in the petroleum trade and his over all excellence. E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to conduct a detailed investigation into the manipulation and those guilty may be severely punished for tarnishing the image of the company. F. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. G. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
(3.) IT may be pointed out that at the initial stage, the writ petitioner had impleaded one Shri P. Lohani who was a common member of the Selection Committee in relation to both the outlets at Neemuch Road and Kelwa but later, his name was deleted from the array of parties with the petitioner waiving the allegations of mala fide against him. The appellants herein, by way of separate replies to the writ petition, refuted the allegations of manipulation and arbitrariness in award of marks in the selection in question; and stated their explanations and reasons for variation of marks in relation to the appellant Pawan Kumar in the two interviews. The learned Single Judge while considering the writ petition, requisitioned the original record of the interviews held for the two outlets and after hearing the parties, proceeded to decide the matter by the impugned order dated 21.1.2008. The learned Single Judge took note of the submissions made on behalf of the parties particularly on the allegations based on the variation in marks as awarded to the appellant Pawan Kumar in the aforesaid two different interviews and so also the explanations put forward by the present appellants on such variation in marks and in denial of the allegations of arbitrariness and favoritism. The learned Single Judge in the first place notice that the scope of interference in such matter in the writ jurisdiction was limited to the extent of seeing fairness or non-arbitrariness in decision making process and that the Court cannot sit as an appellate Court or Reviewing Authority or Section Committee but observed,- "....if the faces stare in the face and point out to the glaring discrimination or exercise of discretion by such authorities in arbitrary and whimsical manner, even within the aforesaid limited scope under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can interfere in such cases and look into the record at the instance of the petitioner and find out whether the decision making process has been fair and reasonable or not." ;