- (1.) The present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the petitioner has not been selected for L.P.G. distributorship by the Interview Committee, constituted by the respondents
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been given L.P.G. distributorship though the petitioner is an eligible candidate for appointment as a distributor. Other similarly situated candidates have been given L.P.G. distributorship, but, the petitioner's case has not been considered by the Screening Committee, constituted by the respondents. The petitioner has appeared before the Interview Committee at Jamshedpur. The result of the interview has also not been published. There was also re-interview of certain candidates and as per the bifurcation of marks, as stated in paragraph 16 of the memo of the petition, the petitioner has secured enough marks for grant of L.P.G. distributorship, therefore, the respondents may be directed to grant L.P.G. distributorship to the petitioner. 3, I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that detailed counter-affidavit has been filed, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner has not secured enough marks in comparison with other candidates and, therefore, the case of the petitioner has not been considered. Moreover, the petitioner had obtained 24.9 marks, less than the marks secured by first, second and third empanelled candidates. As per the policy decision taken by the respondents, the candidate who had secured less than 5% marks, secured by the first candidate, there names will be referred to the Screening Committee for further scrutiny on 11th February, 2004. The petitioner was empanelled in the third list. The candidates of the first and second lists having much higher marks than the petitioner. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit, the details of the candidates and the policy decision has been referred. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that there is no arbitrariness in selection of the candidates. Initially, the candidates were interviewed by the Interview Committee and, thereafter, by Screening Committee. Further, there is scrutiny of the marks, obtained by the candidates. Twice, the close eye has watched the selection proceedings and, thereafter, final list has been prepared. Moreover, L.P.G. distributorship is a contract to be entered into between the parties and there is no compulsion in the contract and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons : (i) It appears that the respondents had published an advertisement for Liquified Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) distributorship on 18th October, 2007 (Corrigendum on 11th March, 2008) for Daltonganj. (ii) It further appears that the interview was conducted on 16th October, 2008 by the Interview Committee, which was nominated by the competent authority of respondent No. 1. (ill) It also appears from the facts of the case that total seventeen candidates, including the petitioner, had participated in the interview. (iv) The first candidate was given 27.7 marks, second candidate had secured 26.7 marks and third candidate had secured 26.0 marks and the petitioner had secured 24.9 marks. (v) It further appears that as per the policy decision taken by the respondents, the candidate who had secured less than 5% marks, secured by the first candidate, there names will be referred to the Screening Committee for further scrutiny. As the petitioner had secured 24.9 marks and the first candidate had secured 27.7 marks, the difference between these two marks is approximately 10% and, therefore, his name was not referred to the Screening Committee as per the policy decision. Even otherwise also, once the decision has been taken by Interview Committee, this Court will not interfere in the said decision, as this Court is not sitting in the appeal upon the Interview Committee. The marks obtained by the candidates cannot be altered by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The result was also displayed on the notice board as well as on the website of the Corporation. The marks obtained by the petitioner are much lesser in comparison with other candidates and, hence, the petitioner has not been given L.P.G. distributorship. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.;