DINESH MAHESHWARI,J. - (1.) THIS intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 09.08.2012 as passed in CWP No.9015/2011 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant against award of dealership of a retail outlet of the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ('HPCL') at Jaitpur on SH-64, District Pali in the open category to the respondent No.4 after finding that there had not been any illegality or arbitrariness in the process of selection. Shorn of unnecessary details, suffice is to notice for the present purpose that the petitioner-appellant and the respondent No.4 had been the applicants alongwith others for award of dealership of the outlet aforesaid wherefor, the applications were invited under the advertisement dated 29.08.2010. The Selection Committee conducted interviews and proceeded to award the marks under various parameters to the respective candidates. In the final total, the respondent No.4 stood first with 79.8 marks on the scale of 100 whereas the petitioner stood second with 77.1 marks. The tabulation of marks could be noticed in the following (reproduced in two parts for convenience): - Appl Name of Capability to provide infrastructure Capability to arrange finance No the and facility (Maximum marks 25) Candidates Marks Marks Weigh Ready availability of finance Max ­ Letter awarded by awarded by -ted 20 MARKS ensuring Site Inspection Interview marks Loan/ Committee Committee - Credit (Max 100) worthi- ness Liquid Cash Fixed and Income in the form of Movable bank fixed assets deposits 35 12 4 4 5 Hanuman Singh 1 Rajpurohit 86 35 30.1 12 0 4 5 2 Kewal Ram 0 0 0 12 4 3.8 5 3 Lumba Ram 87 0 0 12 0 0 5 Man 4 Kanwar 88 35 30.8 12 0 0 5 (Contd. Below) Appl Name of Educa- Capability to generate Age Experi- Busi- Perso- Total Re- No the tional business (Max. marks 10) ence ness nality Marks marks Candidates Quali- acu- fication men Tied up Project Overall volume report assess ment (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) 15 5 3 2 4 4 5 2 100 Hanuman Singh 1 Rajpurohit 10 5 2 1 4 0 2 2 77.1 2nd Kewal 2 Ram 10 5 2 1 4 4 2 1 53.8 Lumba 3 Ram 10 5 2 2 4 4 2 2 48.0. Man 4 Kanwar 12 5 2 1 4 4 2 2 79.8 1st
(2.) THE appellant stated grievance against the result so declared by making a representation on 02.12.2010 with the contention that the Selection Committee had erroneously awarded him 'zero' marks under the sub-head 'Fixed & movable assets' while ignoring the copy of the registered sale deed of the land worth Rs.4,40,000/-, which was assessed and certified by the Sub-Registrar, Sumerpur on 25.08.2010; and the registration certificate of Maruti Van worth Rs.1,70,000/-. The appellant also stated grievance against awarding of 'zero' marks towards 'Experience' while maintaining that he had the requisite experience as per the certificate produced. The appellant further stated the grievance that he was awarded only '2' marks out of '3' on the sub-head 'Project report' though his project report was a comprehensive one, complete in all respects. The appellant also stated the grievance that he was awarded only '2' marks out of '5' on the 'Business acumen' though he was having the experience of trading in glass and plywood while managing 5 persons. It appears that the appellant had earlier filed a writ petition, being CWP No.795/2011, against the selection of the respondent No.4 but, during the pendency of that writ petition, the respondents sent the communication dated 25.07.2011 informing the appellant about rejection of his representation. The appellant, thus, sought permission and withdrew from the said writ petition with liberty to challenge the order passed by the respondents on his objections. Thereafter, the petitioner-appellant filed the writ petition (CWP No.9015/2011) that has been considered and dismissed on merits by the learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned order dated 09.08.2012.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge considered the record including the reply submissions of the respondents and found untenable the objections of the appellant regarding the marks as awarded. In regard to the sub-head 'Fixed & movable assets', the learned Single Judge referred to the requirements in the guidelines that the valuation report, duly certified by the Government Valuer, in support of the assessment was necessary; and observed that the guidelines had been framed by the respondents so as to ensure transparency in the selection process and were required to be adhered to. The learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner-appellant, who defaulted by not producing the Government Valuer's report, could not be accorded any relaxation; and rejected the contention of the appellant that the valuation as put by the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the document ought to have been considered with the observations that while awarding marks, the value of the property on the date of submission of the application was to be taken into consideration and, therefore, the value of property as mentioned in the document in the remote past could not have been made the basis of valuation. The learned Single Judge further observed that no relaxation was allowable in the norms laid down to any individual because it might adversely affect the selection process. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, observed as under: - "..........In the considered opinion of this court, once the guidelines have been framed by the respondent so as to ensure transparency in the selection process, the same have to be adhered to strictly and have to be applied uniformly. The petitioner who has admittedly defaulted in not producing the Government Approved Valuer's report in support of his fixed and movable assets, cannot claim relaxation in the norms as a matter of right. Obviously, applying the norms specified, the respondents are not awarding the marks under the said sub-head to the candidates who have failed to produce the requisite valuer report. In this view of the matter, the respondents have committed no error in refusing to accept the assessment of the market value of the property in question alleged to have been made by the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of assessment of the stamp duty. It is pertinent to note that while awarding the marks, the value of the property as on the date of submitting the application has to be taken into consideration and therefore, the value of the property as mentioned in the document of title acquired in the remote past cannot be the basis for the evaluation in terms of the norms laid down. Further, any relaxation granted in the norms laid down to an individual may lead to pick and choose and thus, shall adversely affect the fairness of the selection process, which cannot be countenanced by this court. In this view of the matter, the action of the Selection Committee in refusing to award the marks to the petitioner under the head "Fixed and Movable Assets" for the want of Valuer's report in conformity with the norms laid down cannot be faulted with." ;