Judgment :- Petitioner challenges the impugned proceeding of the 3rd Respondent dated 21.02.2004 and quash the same in so far as placing 4th Respondent in Serial No.1 in the merit lis1t and the consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the Petitioner as the distributor for Bharat Gas under General Category at Mohanur, Namakkal District. 2. By advertisement in Dhinathanthi, dated 16.08.2000 Respondents 1 and 2 calling for applications for appointment of LP Gas (Bharat Gas) distributors to various locations including one of Serial Number 24, Mohanur, Namakkal District under General Category. In response to the advertisement, the Petitioner has applied for the same. The Petitioner had given particulars and documentary proof regarding two sites one for godown purpose and another for showroom to locate the godown and showroom, which are said to be in main area of Mohanur. Petitioner has averred that she has produced valid Lease Deed to run a gas agency from its owner. 3. Further case of Petitioner is that she has appeared for interview on 20.02.2004 along with all original documents. The 4th Respondent was empanelled as Serial No.1 in the list of shortlisted candidates and the Petitioner was empanelled as Serial No.2. Case of Petitioner is that she has satisfied all the conditions and norms including the preference clause in the advertisement. Petitioner has averred that 3rd Respondent failed to follow the guideline policy of Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas that principal Oil Companies to follow a transparent and uniform procedure in selection of suitable candidates for Distributors of Petroleum Products. According to Petitioner, 4th Respondent is a teacher working in a School and therefore the distributorship of Bharat Gas obtained by her was by misrepresentation. Petitioner challenges empanelment of 4th Respondent as Serial No.1, as biased and arbitrary. 4. Opposing the petition, Respondents 1 to 3 have filed counter stating that the selection was made as per guidelines laid down by the selection and the candidates were evaluated on various parameters like Age, Education, Experience, Business Acumen etc., It is further averred that interviewed candidates were awarded marks as per guidelines and they were short listed and empanelled in the order of merit and accordingly the 4th Respondent was empanelled as No.1 followed by the Petitioner, who was empanelled as No.2. 5. Drawing Courts attention to the files, learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. 5. Drawing Courts attention to the files, learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel, contended that in the selection of 4th Respondent guidelines have been violated. It was submitted that the writ petitioner had produced all the documents as per guidelines. According to the writ petitioner only she has submitted documents in respects of lands for godown and showroom and the Petitioner had produced lease deed from her father-in-law for the lands. It was further submitted that not giving full marks to the Petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable and the Respondents 1 to 3 erred in selecting 4th Respondent. 6. On behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, Mr. K. Ethiraj contended that the marks awarded by Distributorship Selection Committee was fair and reasonable assessment. Drawing Courts attention to file and assessment of marks, the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 submitted that Chairman and all three members have given separate marks and the selection was as per the guidelines and the allegation of malafide are baseless. 7. Reiterating the arguments of Respondents 1 to 3, learned counsel for the 4th Respondent Mr. S.M. Pandian, would submit that the selection was as per the guidelines and the selection of 4th Respondent cannot be challenged. It was further submitted that after selection 4th Respondent has spent nearly 40 lakhs in engaging men and material in ensuring the LPG supply and any intervention by the Court would cause serious prejudice to the 4th Respondent. 8. The locations for distributorship as approved by the Government/Company in Marketing Plans are advertised in newspapers by the Oil Company. The applications received against such advertisement are forwarded by the Oil company to the Distributorship Selection Committee for the scrutiny and selection of the eligible candidates through interviews to be conducted by the Distributorship Selection Committee. 9. The Distributorship Selection Committee, consisting of Chairman (not below the rank of Chief Manager) and two members (not below the rank of Manager) are nominated 48 hours before the interview for the purpose of selecting a distributor as per the Distributorship Selection Guidelines. 10. For selection of a person to be appointed as distributor, Distribution Selection Committee award marks based on the criteria ie., infrastructure and facilities, capability to arrange finance. Educational qualification, age, experience, business ability/acumen and personality approved by Government/Company. 11. 10. For selection of a person to be appointed as distributor, Distribution Selection Committee award marks based on the criteria ie., infrastructure and facilities, capability to arrange finance. Educational qualification, age, experience, business ability/acumen and personality approved by Government/Company. 11. As per guidelines and selection of dealers 3.10 norms for evaluating the candidates and inter-se suitability of the candidates are as follows: (a) Personality, Business ability and Salesmanship 20 marks (b) Capability to arrange finances 15 marks (C) Educational qualification & general level 20 marks of intelligence (d) Capability to provide infrastructure and 35 marks (land, godown, showroom etc) (E) General Assessment 10 marks ----------- Total Marks 100 marks. 12. For distribution of LPG at Mohanur, in response to the advertisement 41 candidates were called for interview. As per the guidelines laid by the Distributorship Selection Committee, the candidates were evaluated on separate parameters like Age, Education, Experience, Business Acumen etc. The various heads under which the candidates were assessed and marks allotted against each heads are as follows: Personality | Customer Orientation/focus -5 | Business ability | Experience -5 | Salesmanship | Business Acumen -4 20 Marks Age -3 Personality -3 Total 20 Marks Capability to Arrange Bankers Certificate for Finance credit worthiness -5 15 Marks Fixed Deposits in ------------------------ Scheduled Banks -5 Other Assets -5 Total 15 Marks Educational | Trade Knowledge -7 Qualification | | Proactive/Responsive/ -7 General level of | Innovative Intelligence | -------------------- Educational Qualification -6 20 Marks ------------- -------------------Total 20 Marks Capability to | Provide | infrastructure | and | facilities | (35 Marks) | Own suitable | land/godown -20 For Godowns-20 | | Has firm offer -10 For Showroom-15| -------------------- Own suitable -15 35 Marks land/showroom Has firm offer - 5 35 Marks General Assessment Working Dealer -5 10 Marks Value System -5 10 Marks 13. Interviewed candidates were awarded marks as per guidelines and they were shortlisted and empanelled in the order of merit. The empanelled candidates in order of merit was displayed in the notice board on the same day of completion of the interview. 4th Respondent was empanelled as No.1 and the Petitioner was empanelled as No.2 and one Rajavelu was empanelled as third candidate. The empanelled candidates in order of merit was displayed in the notice board on the same day of completion of the interview. 4th Respondent was empanelled as No.1 and the Petitioner was empanelled as No.2 and one Rajavelu was empanelled as third candidate. As per the chart produced before the court the marks awarded to the empanelled candidates are as follows: Chairman Member I Member II Average Petitioner 59 58 59 58.7 4th Respondent 61 61 60 60.7 Rajavelu 56 56 57 56.3 14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had produced number of documents showing land for godown and showroom offered by her own father-in-law and while so no marks were awarded to the Petitioner for the lands. It was further submitted that the 4th Respondent has not at all produced any document showing the lands for godown and showroom and for the 4th Respondent no marks were awarded for the lands. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the arbitrariness in selection is evident from placing the Petitioner on similar footing as that of 4th Respondent by awarding "0" mark under the head under own suitable land/godown. The above contention does not merit acceptance. Both Petitioner as well as 4th Respondent have shown lands "firm offer". Both for the Petitioner as well as to the 4th Respondent "10" marks were awarded for firm offer therefore it cannot be contended that unequals were placed on similar footing. 15. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that Petitioner is a B.E. graduate in Electrical and Electronics and was an exemplary sports women falling within the purview of preferential treatment and while so the Selection Committee erred in not awarding proper marks for Education and exemplary performance in sports. As noted earlier, for Educational qualification "6" marks were allotted and the Petitioner was awarded maximum "6" marks for Educational qualification. Whereas the 4th Respondent was awarded only "4" marks for Educational qualification. On the other hand 4th Respondent appears to have secured more marks for "Trade Knowledge", "Proactive/Responsive/Innovative". 16. In any event, awarding of marks is purely the deliberation of Selection Committee. The scope of judicial review in Administrative matters is linked to the decision making process and does not extend to the merits of the decision. On the other hand 4th Respondent appears to have secured more marks for "Trade Knowledge", "Proactive/Responsive/Innovative". 16. In any event, awarding of marks is purely the deliberation of Selection Committee. The scope of judicial review in Administrative matters is linked to the decision making process and does not extend to the merits of the decision. Where there is no proof of any malafide collusion or fraud or manipulation of records, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court will not re-appreciate or re-appraise the relevant material factor. 17. Contending when exceptional circumstances exist, the High Court can interfere in matters of allotment of LPG/Petroleum outlets. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon 2002 Writ L.R. 467 N. Balaji vs. L.M. Shanthi, in the said case the Appellant/ 1st empanelled candidate suppressed the material facts in the application he made to the Respondents- Oil Corporation. Pointing out that the declaration given by the Appellant and suppression of facts will disqualify the Appellant from being considered for the dealership/distributorship the Division Bench confirmed the order of the Learned Single Judge setting aside the allotment in favour of the Appellant. The facts of the said case is not applicable to the present case where there is no infirmity or procedural lapses in the Selection. 18. In yet another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner 1995 II MLJ 458 V. Chandran vs. Oil Selection Board, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the Court cannot re-appraise the qualification merits of the candidates in the writ proceedings. In my considered view, there is nothing wrong in the selection of 4th Respondent in awarding LPG distributorship at Mohanur, Namakkal District, particularly in the absence of any malafide. It is also relevant to note that hitherto the 4th Respondent has been successfully running the distributorship and the 4th Respondent is also said to have invested huge amount for men and material for ensuring supply of LPG. Any intervention of the Court would cause serious prejudice to the 4th Respondent. 19. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.