Judgment : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings dated 16.12.2000 on the file of the second respondent and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to select the petitioner for the L.P.G. Distributor at Palladam, Coimbatore District. 2. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the advertisement published in the daily newspaper dated 7.6.1998 calling for applications for selecting a dealer in L.P.G. Distributor at Palladam, the petitioner got the application on payment of cost. The petitioner also submitted his application to the 1st respondent within time. According to the petitioner, he is fully eligible as per the conditions published in the said advertisement. Subsequently, it is the case of the petitioner that, again applications were called for, even for L.P.G. Distributor at palladam along with other centres. The petitioner obtained fresh application and sent the said application with necessary particulars. The petitioner appeared for an interview on 16.12.2000. In spite of that, the 2nd respondent provisionally selected respondents 3 to 5. It is also stated that their names were published in the Notice Board at 4.30 p.m., on the same day itself, after the interview was conducted. It is also stated that the respondents 3 and 5 did not possess any land at Palladam and the petitioner is having land at Palladam which was specifically mentioned in the application and thereby he is entitled to get preferential treatment than that of respondents 3 to 5. 3. The respondents 1 and 5 filed counter denying the above said averments. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in clause ( G ) of the notification calling for applications for L.P.G. Distributorship, it is stated that preference should be given to the applicants who are owning/having leasehold right of land for a long period. The petitioner is having such qualification and the 5th respondent is not possessing such qualification, as the 5th respondent is not having any land at Palladam and so the petitioner should be given preference. Learned counsel further submitted that in the reply filed by the petitioner it is stated th at the income of the 5th respondent’s family was more than Rs.2,00,000 for the financial year 1999-2000 and so he is disqualified from considering his application by the Dealer Selection Board. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that in the reply filed by the petitioner it is stated th at the income of the 5th respondent’s family was more than Rs.2,00,000 for the financial year 1999-2000 and so he is disqualified from considering his application by the Dealer Selection Board. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner cannot sustain this writ petition questioning the correctness of the process of appreciating and weighing the various factors and rival merits of applicants. Learned counsel further submitted that with respect to disqualification mentioned in the reply affidavit, the same was not mentioned in the main affidavit so as to enable them to deny the same. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that the Dealer Selection Board after appreciating various factors which are required for selection, selected the 5th respondent and so the petitioner cannot sustain this writ petition. Though the learned counsel has not denied the fact that the 5th respondent is not having any land at Palladam, he submitted that such requirement is only to have a preferential right and not for selection itself. He also submitted that with respect to the income, they produced the records before the Dealer Selection Board which was accepted by the Board. Merely on the basis of the affidavit, this Court cannot test the correctness of the selection itself. 7. From the facts set out above, it is clear that the petitioner made application for selection for L.P.G. Distributorship at Palladam town along with other 53 persons including the respondents 3 to 5. Including the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5, 48 candidates appeared for interview. On the basis of the interview, the Selection Board in the proceedings dated 16.12.2000 asked the General Manager, M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., to arrange for carrying out field investigation report in respect of 5th respondent, Mr. Vinothkumar and further directed to issue letter of intent of he is suitable. The direction was given on the basis of list of short-listed candidates, viz. , respondents 3 to 5. But the distributorship was given to the 5th respondent. Vinothkumar and further directed to issue letter of intent of he is suitable. The direction was given on the basis of list of short-listed candidates, viz. , respondents 3 to 5. But the distributorship was given to the 5th respondent. The same has been challenged though on various grounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly raised two grounds, namely, under clause “ G ” of the notification calling for applications, preference should be given to applicants who hold land at Palladam, and the 5th respondent’s family got income more than Rs.2,00,000 for the financial year 1999-2000. 8. With respect to the second submission, admittedly, the petitioner has raised the same only in the reply affidavit to the counter filed by the respondents stating that the 5th respondent is disqualified from considering his application for selection of dealership as he had income more than Rs.2,00,000 during the financial year 1999-2000. Except making such averments in the affidavit, no material is placed before this court. 9. With respect to the first ground raised, there is no dispute that the petitioner is owning land at Palladam and the 5th respondent is not having land at Palladam. The said plea was raised only to rely clause “ G ” of the notification calling for applications. Clause “ G ” of the said notification reads as follows :- The said clause does not speak about qualification but only about giving preferential right to the applicants. The petitioner has given such details in the application and the Selection Board should have appreciated the same also. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent has not dealt with the above said contention of the petitioner except making vague denial. 10. As directed by this court, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent produced the original file. From the said file, I am able to see that the Dealer Selection Board consisting of the Chairman and two Members have given marks individually for each of the applicants, and on the basis of such marks, selection was made. 10. As directed by this court, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent produced the original file. From the said file, I am able to see that the Dealer Selection Board consisting of the Chairman and two Members have given marks individually for each of the applicants, and on the basis of such marks, selection was made. The petitioner has got the following marks :- 31 + 47 + 46 = 124 The respondents have got the following marks :- Respondent No.3 – 50 + 90 + 72 = 212 Respondent No.4 – 46 + 76 + 68 = 190 Respondent No.5 – 93 + 80 + 80 = 253 It is not for this court to go into the correctness of the assessment of the candidates made by the Board. 11. With respect to the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the functions of the Selection Board, the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in V. Chandran v. Oil Selection Board, Madras , AIR 1996 Mad. 87 , has held as follows :- “14. As already seem, the 1st respondent Board is a high level body consisting of a retired Judge of this court, one retired Deputy Accountant General and former member and acting Chairman of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and another respectable person. The 1st respondent, after considering the materials on record and the personal assessment of merit, business ability, capacity, etc., of the applicants, has prepared a panel according to their merits and granted the distributorship to the 4th res pondent by the letter of Indent dated 29.3.1994. The process of appreciating and weighing the various factors, materials and rival merits, is the function of the 1st respondent Board, which is having the necessary expertise and experience to perform its duties properly. In our view, there cannot therefore be any re-appreciation or re-appraisal of relevant material factors, relative qualification and evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Co nstitution of India”. 12. Though this court cannot go into the correctness of the assessment of marks awarded, this court can go into the correctness of the procedure followed. The selection should be transparent and the basis for the conclusion should be spelt out. If the procedure followed by the Board is arbitrary, this court can interfere with the selection. 12. Though this court cannot go into the correctness of the assessment of marks awarded, this court can go into the correctness of the procedure followed. The selection should be transparent and the basis for the conclusion should be spelt out. If the procedure followed by the Board is arbitrary, this court can interfere with the selection. In this case, there is no speaking order to show on what basis the said marks were awarded. While short listing the candidates, viz., respondents 3 to 5, the chairman had made a note as follows :- “Note :- The above applicants had made a claim with regard to land and weightage has been given to them for the same.” But respondent No. 5 was admittedly not having any land at Palladam and no such particulars were given in the application though the petitioner had given such particulars. 13. Even with respect to the income of the 5th respondent, in his application, he had shown the income of his father only stating he was the dependent for his parents. But in the application, the petitioner has stated that he has been working as a Supervisor in Logo Testiles at Kodavai. He has also stated that he was managing 300 persons per day in his shift. But, he has not declared his income at all in the application. But, on the other hand, it is stated that his income was “hil”. No material is av ailable in the files produced before this court to show that the Board and appreciated all these aspects. 14. While deciding about the jurisdiction of the court, the Division Bench in the above said decision considered it necessary to issue specific directions to the Selection Board for guidelines and in the interest of making the functions of the Selection Board more transparent and avoiding allegations of improper selection and favourtism. The Division Bench has given the following directions :- “17. The 1st respondent and other such boards constituted for other areas will be dealing with appointment of Indane Distributorship, allotment of Petrol Bunks and other matters connected with sale and distribution of the products of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission of the Union of India. Therefore, it should not result in distribution of largesse of the State. The functioning, proceeding and decision of the 1st respondent should be transparent so as to be free from criticism and arbitrariness. Therefore, it should not result in distribution of largesse of the State. The functioning, proceeding and decision of the 1st respondent should be transparent so as to be free from criticism and arbitrariness. The proceedings of the Board should speak for itself. There should be a regular proceeding drawn up discussing the merits of each candidate and the reasons for selecting the required number of applicants out of several applicants. As the Board is headed by a retired Judge of the High court, there should not be any difficulty in ensuring that the proceedings and the decision of the Board are free from arbitrariness and informed by reasons. In other words, the decision of the Board must speak for itself t o avoid arbitrariness and to ensure the propriety and regularity of the proceedings of the Board and the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. We accordingly issue when directions to respondents 1 to 3 in the aforesaid terms. We also direct the 3rd respondent to issue similar directions to all other Oil Selection Boards constituted for other areas”. 15. But, in the present case, I do not find any such transparency in awarding marks and there is no decision of the Dealer Selection Board which could speak for itself regarding the selection of applicants. Except awarding marks, there is no decision or findings with respect to the basis for awarding such marks. In view of the above, the procedure followed by the Dealer Selection Board is contrary to the directions given in the judgment of the Division Bench cited above. 16. For all the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 16.12.2000 cannot be sustained and so the same is set aside, and it is for the authorities concerned to proceed with fresh selection, and if the petitioner wants to make fresh application, he can make such application. With the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.