K. Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner challenges the selection for dealership for setting up a retail petrol outlet on the ground that he was more meritorious than the 4th respondent, but he (the 4 respondent) has been awarded the dealership without any valid justification. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner came to know that the 4 respondent's father was a Chief Judicial Magistrate and he has exercised an influence to secure the dealership for his son.
2. The selection was among the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, where there was no requirement for either possession of property or income. The petitioner would state that he was a law graduate and was better qualified than the 4 respondent, who was only a matriculate and he was himself a resident of Narwana where the petrol pump was going to be located, while the 4 respondent belonged to Rohtak. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out to the selection criteria that set out that all things being equal, the person, who belonged to the district where the petrol pump was going to be located, shall be preferred. According to him, the petitioner ought to have been preferred and there was no reason why the 4 respondent, who was from yet another district, could have been awarded the dealership.
3. The original file has been produced before the Court and with the permission of the Court, the petitioner had an occasion to inspect the same. The learned counsel would tabulate before me the marks that had been allotted to the petitioner and the 4 respondent in his endeavour to show as to how the assessment is lacks objectivity and how it betrays favouritism for the 4 respondent. The parameters for assessing the relative merits of the candidates have been spelt out under five categories, namely, (i) personality/business ability/salesmanship; (ii) capability to arrange finance; (iii) education and general level of intelligence; (iv) infrastructure; and (v) general assessment. There have been three interviewers and the record shows that all the three members had relatively graded the 4 respondent higher than the petitioner. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to show to me as to how each one of the criteria had met with responses from the respective interviewers, I refused audience for the same when the argument veered around how the assessment for intelligence for a non-graduate could be equivalent to a graduate such as the petitioner. Each one of the criteria laid down would admit of variations depending on the interviewer's ability to assess and it shall not be the Court's exercise to see whether any other grading would have been possible. I limit myself to the narrow scope of judicial review that unless there was something seriously amiss that showed a clear case of favourtism, it shall not be possible for the Court to make a reappraisal. I am not impressed by the argument that the 4 respondent could have been selected only because he was a judicial officer's son. There were three different interviewers and one of them had been from yet another State. It is not possible for me to gather any specific material to show that the 4 respondent's father had any role to play in the manner of selection. The learned counsel also points out to the fact that the 4 respondent has given a certificate that he was working in some petrol pump drawing Rs. 2,300/- per month as salary when the same had not been disclosed in the application. I find that application has been submitted on 07.02.1998 and the salary certificate which he has produced relates to a period subsequent to the date of the application. I cannot, therefore, find any case of suppression. The learned counsel also refers to me to the fact that the 4 respondent has given his certificate of residence from various places wherever his father was working. It does not appear to be very significant, for, the selection has not been made with any particular reference to the place of residence. With Article 16 in place, the residential status itself cannot be very material except for what the selection criterion itself had been that all things being equal the person of the same district would be granted preference. In this case, the 4 respondent was chosen in spite of his being not a resident of Narwana only because of the interviewers had marked him relatively higher than the petitioner.
4. I will not find any reason to interfere with the selection with no definite material of personal vias in favour of the 4 respondent as being the son of a judicial officer.
5. The decision to award the dealership to the 4 respondent cannot, therefore, be interfered with. The writ petition is dismissed.