Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed for declaring the action of the first respondent/Indian Oil Corporation Limited in placing the second respondent in the first position for the award of Indane Gas Distributorship for Tabaram area as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to place the petitioners in the first position and award the Indane Gas Distributorship for Tabaram area to the petitioners. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of writ petition are as follows: The first respondent/Indian Oil Corporation Limited floated an advertisement on 06.02.2008 calling for applications individually and on partnership basis for Indane Gas Distributorship for Tambaram area and the first petitioner individually and the petitioners 1 and 2 jointly applied for the same. The first petitioner individually and petitioners 1 and 2 jointly along with other applicants were called for personal interview and duly attended the interview on 27.04.2009. The interview is followed by declaration of results on the very next day on 25.07.2009, as per which, the second respondent herein was awarded 92 marks and was placed in the first position and the first petitioner in her individual capacity and the petitioners 1 and 2 on partnership basis are awarded 91 and 90 marks and were placed in the second and third position respectively. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioners sent notice and legal notice to the first respondent on 26.07.2009 and 31.07.2009 raising serious grievance against the manner of evaluation and against awarding lesser marks to the petitioners as partners in respect of their capability to provide finance and the same was replied by the first respondent on 15.07.2009, wherein the method of evaluation adopted was for the reasons set out therein fully supported, which has compelled the petitioners to approach this court by way of this present writ petition for the reliefs as stated above. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the evaluation criteria adopted by the first respondent is different from the one contrary to the selection norms prescribed by the first respondent and had the norms been strictly adhered to the petitioners would have been awarded full marks for the capability to provide finance and they would have been consequently placed in the first position and the failure to do so has led to an illegal decision, which is unfair, biased, arbitrary and without justification. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for the official and individual respondents would seriously oppose the claim of the petitioners not only by questioning the right of the petitioners to question the award of marks done by the scrutiny committee but also by defending the quantum of the marks awarded to the second respondent. It is contended on behalf of the first respondent that the applications of all the candidates were scrutinised by the separate committee constituted for the purpose and there is no allegations of malafide raised either against the first respondent or against the committee and the petitioners have hence no locus-standi to maintain the present writ petition by questioning the norms prescribed by the first respondent for award of distributorship. It is also his definite stand that the evaluation criteria for capability to provide finance are four sub-factors and while the first three sub-factors such as funds position, ability to arrange loan and assets to be assessed on the basis of the capacity of one partner and the same to be treated as belonging to the partnership and the last sub-factor under the heading income shall be evaluated on the basis of average of the individual partners, as per the clarification issued by Deputy General Manager circulated to All State Heads in his proceedings dated 07.04.2005 in SL/1601. It is further contended by the first respondent that as the second petitioner has not furnished any particulars in the joint application regarding his income, the partners are awarded 2.5 marks, which is the average of full marks i.e., five prescribed for such sub-factor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents have also cited catena of judgments in support of their respective contentions in this regard. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the relevant records made available herein. 5. The claim made by the petitioner is seriously opposed by the respondents by firstly questioning the maintainability of this writ petition. The respondents have by relying upon the judgments of Apex Court and our High Court reported in i) 1995 (II) CTC 286 Division Bench of the High Court of Madras V.Chandran Vs. Oil Selection Board and others ii)(2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 681 K.Vinod kumar Vs. S.Palanisamy and others iii) (2010) 1 MLJ 167 M.Senthilkumar Vs. The respondents have by relying upon the judgments of Apex Court and our High Court reported in i) 1995 (II) CTC 286 Division Bench of the High Court of Madras V.Chandran Vs. Oil Selection Board and others ii)(2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 681 K.Vinod kumar Vs. S.Palanisamy and others iii) (2010) 1 MLJ 167 M.Senthilkumar Vs. Chairman Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and iV) (2010) 1 MLJ 742 Division Bench of High Court of Madras R.Kaliavani Vs. Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and others opposed the locus-standi of the petitioners to maintain the writ petition mainly on the ground that the petitioners having participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the evaluation criteria method and having become unsuccessful cannot be permitted to raise any complaint against the selection process. 6. It is true that, in all the four cases referred above, the challenge made before the court of law is against the selection process made known to the applicants and such challenge made by the petitioners, who participated in the selection unsuccessfully with full knowledge of the selection process is negatived by Honble Apex Court and our High Court as one not maintainable and devoid of merits. But even while doing so, the Supreme Court and Division Bench of our High Court is in the authority reported in 1995 (II) CTC 286 and (2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 681 have unequivocal terms observed that the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision making process and does not extend to the merits of the decision so taken and the court is concerned with as to whether the selection process is vitiated by any error or not. The cases dealt with by our Division Bench and Single Bench of our High court as mentioned above are relating to award of distributorship and the final decision of the Oil Selection Board was challenged mainly by questioning the quantum of the marks awarded that is against the decision taken on merits and the same is decided against the writ petitioners therein. There is absolutely no quarrel over the legal proposition so laid down in the judgments. 7. There is absolutely no quarrel over the legal proposition so laid down in the judgments. 7. However, the reading of the main grievance raised in the writ petition would disclose that though it appears to be against the quantum of marks awarded, the first petitioner individually and the petitioners 1 and 2 as partners in the evaluation process, the basis for the relief is not the award of marks but the mode adopted for awarding such marks. In short the writ petition is not against the evaluation criteria and the mode of evaluation stipulated in the brochure relating to the award of Indane Gas distributorship but against the mode of evaluation adopted which is according to the petitioners in contravention of the mode stipulated in the brochure and the consequential award of lesser marks to the petitioners as partners. Hence, I am of the considered view that the real challenge herein is that the selection process adopted is contrary to the selection process prescribed and is made public to the candidates concerned. If that is so, the observation of Apex court and our High Court in the judgments above cited do well support the maintainability of the present writ petition. Hence the first objection raised on the side of the respondents has to necessarily fail. 8. Regarding the claim of the petitioners on merits the Brochure dated June 2007 is supplied to the candidates concerned in this regard, in and under which guidelines are issued covering very many factors relating to the award of distributorship. The clauses relevant to decide the issue involved in this writ petition are clauses 14, 14.1 14.2 and the same are for better understanding and appreciation extracted as follows. 14.NORMS FOR EVALUATING THE CANDIDATES The LPG distributor will be selected on the basis of evaluation of all eligible applicants on the following parameters. a. Capability to provide infrastructure*35 marks b. Capability to provide finance *35 marks c. Educational qualifications **15 marks d. Age ** 4 marks e. Experience 4 marks .f. Business ability/acumen 5 marks g. Personality ** 2 marks Total marks 100 marks The evaluation on the parameters a to d above will be done on the basis of the information given in the application. The evaluation on the parameter e f & g will be done based on the interview. 14.1. The evaluation on the parameter e f & g will be done based on the interview. 14.1. Allocation of marks on various parameters based on documents will be carried out as per the information given in the application. Parameter Sub head Description Max Marks Evaluation Capability to provide infrastructure and facilities (as on the date of application Suitable land for LPG storage godown/ godown Owns @ - Having clear title/ Registered Sales Deed of the suitable land/godown 25 Based on the information & statement given in the application OR Firm offer @@- Having agreement to purchase/lease suitable land/ godown 18 Based on the information & statement given in the application OR Can arrange 10 Based on the information & statement given in the application Suitable land/shop for showroom Owns @ Having clear title/Registered Sales Deed of the suitable land/shop for showroom 10 Based on the information & statement given in the application OR Firm offer @@- Having agreement to purchase/ suitable land/shop for showroom 7 Based on the information & statement given in the application OR Can arrange 5 Based on the information & statement given in the application Sub total maxim marks 35 Capability to provide finance Financially sound Funds (a) Amount in saving accounts in Bank.(as on date of application) (b) Free and unencumbered fixed deposits in scheduled banks or any other documents/resource which can be readily converted to liquid cash to cover working capital/infrastructure requirements (as on date of advertisement) 18 Based on the information given in the application (Fds/NSCs/Shares/any other investment bonds in the name of self or family members as defined above under relationship clause) Award 0.1 marks on every unit of Rs.10,000/- or more in multiples of Rs.10,000/-and amounts less than complete unit of Rs.10,000/-will not be considered for award of marks. Maximum marks-18.Rs.18,00,000 & above 18.0 marks Capability to provide finance continued... Ability to arrange loan (c) Bankers/Financial institution certificate for credit worthiness and willingness to extend loan, if required. (as on date of application) 7 Based on the letter from Bank/Financial Institution sent with the application. 7 marks in case no Credit worthiness certificate from bankers/financial institutions but Funds are more than 20 lakhs as mentioned at (a) & (b) above. Otherwise marks to be awarded on the basis of certificate from bankers/financial institutions as under:- Range of loan Rs. 7 marks in case no Credit worthiness certificate from bankers/financial institutions but Funds are more than 20 lakhs as mentioned at (a) & (b) above. Otherwise marks to be awarded on the basis of certificate from bankers/financial institutions as under:- Range of loan Rs. Marks to be awarded >=2 lac to < 4 lac 1 >=4 lac to < 6 lac 2 >=6 lac to < 7 lac 3 >=7 lac to < 8 lac 4 >=8 lac to < 9 lac 5 >=9 lac to < 10 lac 6 >=10 lac 7 Assets (d) Fixed and other assets (as on date of advertisement) 5 Based on information of application. 5 marks in case no immovable and moveable property but funds are more than 20 lakhs as mentioned at (a & (b) above. Other wise marks to be awarded as under. Range of assets value Marks to be awarded >=3 lacs < 6 lacs 1 mark >=6 lacs <9 lacs 2 mark >=9 lacs <12 lacs 3 marks >=12 lacs < 15 lacs 4 marks >=15 lacs 5 marks Income (e) Income from all sources such as salary, property, business, agricultural, interest, dividend, rent earnings, royalty etc. per annum 5 Based on information of application. Income as per Income Tax Return of the last financial year and or affidavit on income Maximum Marks 5. Award 0.1 marks on every unit of Rs.10,000/- or more in multiples of Rs.10,000/-and amounts less than complete unit of Rs.10,000/- will not be considered for award of marks. Sub total maximum marks 35 * In case of LPG distributorships reserved under SC/ST category, there will be no evaluation on Land and Financial capabilities. ** Age, Educational Qualification and personality shall not be applicable in case of Govt. Organisations/Corporations/Undertakings, Public Ltd. Companies, Cooperative Societies and Private Companies and full marks shall be awarded. @ Own means having clear ownership title of the property or on long leased (minimum 15 yrs) in the name of family member as defined in eligibility criteria/multiple distributorship norm duly supported by documents @@ Firm offers means an agreement on stamp paper for sale or lease (minimum 15 years) between the applicant and the owner duly supported by documents. In respect of partnerships, all partners will have to attend the interview together and they will be evaluated individually for individual parameters like age, educational qualification etc. In respect of partnerships, all partners will have to attend the interview together and they will be evaluated individually for individual parameters like age, educational qualification etc. The land and finance owned by any one of the partners will be treated as the same being owned by the firm as a whole for evaluation purposes. Every thing being equal, preference will be given to unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents and widows for LPG distributorship locations reserved for women. In case of two or more applicants scores same marks, then applicant who has scored more marks based on documents shall be placed above the other person in the merit panel. In case two or more applicants scores same marks based on documents and in interview, then the applicant who is younger in age shall be placed above the other applicant in the merit panel. A candidate has to get minimum 40% marks after interview for being included in the merit panel. In case no candidate gets 40% marks, then the location will be re-advertised." 9. The plain reading of the guide lines set out in the brochure relating to various columns such as parameter, sub head, description, maximum marks and evaluation method do not specifically mention the basis for awarding marks i.e., individually or as partners as to whether the marks shall be awarded individually or otherwise. This aspect is only covered in the sub-clauses given below the tabular column at page 11 of the brochure emphasised in bold letters by this Court. The same would in clear terms specify the mode of evaluation in respect of the applications filed by the partners as per which all the partners will attend the interview together and they will be evaluated individually for individual parameters such as age, educational qualification etc. It is further specifically stated therein that in respect of parameters relating to finance, the lands and finance owned by any one of the partners will be treated as the same being owned by the firm as a whole for evaluation purpose. 10. It is further specifically stated therein that in respect of parameters relating to finance, the lands and finance owned by any one of the partners will be treated as the same being owned by the firm as a whole for evaluation purpose. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners have strongly relied upon this particular clause in support of the petitioners claim as to how the finance aspect of the partners ought to have been assessed on the basis of any one of the partners and as to how the process adopted by the first respondent as openly admitted in the reply notice dated 15.09.2009 and in the counter filed herein is different from the one set out in the brochure and as to how the decision arrived at by adopting such erroneous process is also equally erroneous. 11. It is now not in serious dispute that the brochure dated July 2007 is the one issued to the candidates and the guidelines and instructions set out therein are applicable to the selection under dispute. It is equally not in issue that such guidelines and instructions have the force of law and are to be strictly adhered to without any deviation. However, the respondents have attempted to introduce one document purported to be letter of clarification so as to give different interpretation to clauses 14, 14.1 and 14.2 as set out in the brochure and as extracted above 12. The letter of clarification dated 7.4.2005 signed by Deputy General Manager circulated to All State Heads in his proceedings dated 07.04.2005 in SL/1601 is enclosed at pages 5 and 6 of the type set filed on behalf of the first respondent herein. It is no doubt true that the document above referred to contains one such clarification to the effect that the financial capability, ability to arrange loan and assets should be evaluated on the combined strength of all the partners and under the head "income" partners should be evaluated individually and marks should be awarded on individual strength. It is further stated therein that educational qualification, age, business ability, and personality should be individually assessed for the partners and marks be awarded accordingly and the average of the marks obtained by the partners should be taken for deciding the position of partnership application in the merit panel. It is further stated therein that educational qualification, age, business ability, and personality should be individually assessed for the partners and marks be awarded accordingly and the average of the marks obtained by the partners should be taken for deciding the position of partnership application in the merit panel. The leaned counsel for the respondents have also by relying upon the judgment of our Supreme Court reported in 2008 (4) SCC 171 in Dhananjay Malik and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others argued that the government is by way of administrative instruction empowered to fill up the gap and supplement rules and issue instruction not inconsistent with the rules already framed if rules are silent on any particular point. Our apex court has in the judgment above referred to by following the earlier judgment of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1967 SC 1910 in Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan clearly laid down so. However, in my considered view, the observation so made by the Supreme Court are not in applicable to the present case which stands distinguishable on facts and on issues. 13. As rightly referred to above the guidelines contain in the brochure in this regard are very clear in its terms. There is absolutely no lacuna or ambiguity regarding the mode of evaluation of parameter of finance which requires further clarification on the particular aspect. The Brochure contains all the particulars about the maximum information based on which and the manner in which the marks to be awarded. The conjoint reading of clauses 14.1 and 14.2 along with sub clause contained therein would not leave any doubt or ambiguity in the matters above referred to. As a matter of fact the first respondent has in the reply notice dated 15.09.2009 enclosed at pages 12 and 13 of the typed set filed on behalf of the first respondent only referred to the instructions contained in the brochure and para 4 at page 2 of such reply notice proceeds as if as per application serial no 14.1 the ground "annual income of financial year" would be taken as individual score and average would be arrived at as per selection guide lines. It is further stated in para 5 of the same reply notice that as per application serial no 14.1 in respect of the first petitioner/ individual application the first petitioner is given full marks for the parameter income whereas the second petitioner could in the joint application obtain no marks as no income was mentioned in the application and average of 2.5 was awarded under the head income making the total 32.5 and the marks so awarded is in line with the selection guide lines. 14. This court would at the risk of repetition like to mention that the selection guide lines as referred to in the reply notice is nothing but the guide lines set out in the brochure of June 2007 which is admittedly made applicable for the present selection. Only in this context the letter dated 07.04.2005 is to be necessarily looked into. 15. It is note worthy to mention that the last paragraph of letter dated 7.04.2005 clearly says that the same shall form part of the evaluation criteria circulated as Annexure – C vide SL/1601 dated 24.11.2004. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the clarification referred to herein though was sought for in relation to the selection held during 2004 and the same is though being adopted for the subsequent years, not admittedly incorporated in the brochure circulated during subsequent years particularly in brochure of July 2007. Neither in the counter nor in the course of argument herein the learned counsel for the first respondent is able to offer any reason for not suitably modifying clauses 14.1 and 14.2 as per this clarification. Had it been carried out, the petitioner has no case at all herein. It is to be recollected herein that the reply notice issued on behalf of the first respondent has also not referred to this clarification but only referred to application Serial No.14.1 the reading of which does not support the explanation sought to be given in the reply notice and in the counter filed herein. 16. It is to be recollected herein that the reply notice issued on behalf of the first respondent has also not referred to this clarification but only referred to application Serial No.14.1 the reading of which does not support the explanation sought to be given in the reply notice and in the counter filed herein. 16. If this aspect in viewed in the light of disclaimer clause 24 of this brochure that the corporation may revise the contents of this brochure from time to time without giving any notice the same will lead to an inference that the clarification so issued is only meant for the particular selection held during 2004 and the first respondent has not thought fit to adopt the same selection process for the subsequent years and the clarification was hence deliberately not incorporated in the guide lines for the subsequent years. It is further strenuously argued on the side of respondents that despite the contra instructions contained in the brochure the selection process adopted for all these years is only on the basis of clarification but the same is not supported by any valid document herein. while referring to disclaimer clause 24 the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 argued that as per the disclaimer clause the contents of the brochure are only for general information and the same should not be contended as policy documents and it cannot be legally quoted and Indian Oil Corporation is the final authority for giving any clarification or interpretation on the contents given in the brochure if need be and at its discretion and the corporation may revise the brochure from time to time without giving any notice. Such argument is not legally acceptable as the respondents cannot be permitted to take shelter under this class to act contrary to the instructions contained in the brochure which has as per the settled legal position, the force of law and to be strictly adhered to without any deviation. If that is so, the first respondent ought to have without any deviation, strictly adhered to the guidelines set out in the brochure in the matter of mode of evaluation. 17. If that is so, the first respondent ought to have without any deviation, strictly adhered to the guidelines set out in the brochure in the matter of mode of evaluation. 17. Even assuming it to be true that the selection process is as per the clarification, the same, ought to have been incorporated in the brochure and the failure to incorporate the actual mode of selection in the brochure has deprived the petitioners to know the different mode of selection other than the one mentioned in the guide line. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the failure to incorporate it in the brochure has misled the petitioners as a result one of the petitioners, under such mistaken impression, omitted to mention any particulars under the head income resulting in awarding of lesser marks to the petitioners as partners. The arguments advanced on the side of the petitioners that had it been made known to the petitioners both the petitioners 1 and 2 would have furnished all the particulars in respect of their individual income and the combined strength of the partners would have secured them full marks deserves full merit. There is considerable legal force in the contention raised on the petitioners side that the first petitioner having been awarded full 5 marks under the head finance in her individual application, the petitioners 1 and 2 would have been as partners awarded the same 5 marks if the evaluation norms prescribed in the brochure is adopted. As rightly argued on the side of the petitioners, the act of the first respondent in not strictly observing the guidelines and in adopting different criteria has resulted in disadvantage to the petitioners which is not legally permissible. The argument advanced on the side of the petitioners that the different mode of evaluation adopted amounts to abuse of the power deserves some merit and acceptance. In the considered view of this Court, it is also in contravention of well laid principles of law that any decision making process should be transparent, fair and open and the failure to adopt such legal principles has resulted in violation of the principle of natural justice and such action is hence vitiated by unfairness, bias and arbitrariness. 18. Such contention is also fortified by our Apex Court judgment reported in (1997) 1 SCC 53 in Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd Vs. 18. Such contention is also fortified by our Apex Court judgment reported in (1997) 1 SCC 53 in Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd Vs. Indo Mechantiles Pvt. Ltd. The case above referred to relates to the procedure followed by the Commissioner in accepting the tender of the appellant for supply of rectified distributor ship. The tender was called for but the tender did not specify the viability range and did not say that after receiving the tenders the Commissioner would determine the viability range and would then call upon the lowest eligible tenderer to make a counter offer. Without specifying so the commissioner and the Government entered upon the exercise of determining what is called viability range and they called upon Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd., who was the appellant therein who which happens to quote maximum of viability range to revise his offer and thereafter, his bid was accepted. The same was challenged by one of the tenderers on the ground that the acceptance of tender of Dutta Associates pvt., Ltd., by making it to revise his bid and by not accepting the tender of the objector is contrary to law, unfair and arbitrary. The single judge dismissed the writ petition and on appeal the Honble Division Bench allowed the writ petition and set aside the acceptance of the tender of Dutta Associates Pvt Ltd. The Honble Division Bench was of the view that the Government have acted unfarily in calling upon Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd., alone to submit a counter offer while not giving a similar opportunity to the other tenderers. Such order of the Division Bench was challenged by Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd, before the Supreme Court. Our Apex Court has after analysing all the aspects arrived at a conclusion that the entire process leading to the acceptance of the tender of Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd., is vitiated by more than one illegality. Our Apex court has in its judgment pointed out 3 illegalities in the matter of selection process and after discussing the same in detail the Apex Court is finally pleased to confirm the order of Division bench. 19. The first illegality found out by the Supreme Court is that the tender notice did not specify the viability range. It is discussed in paras 4, 5 and 7 of its judgment, which is extracted as follows: "4. ....... 19. The first illegality found out by the Supreme Court is that the tender notice did not specify the viability range. It is discussed in paras 4, 5 and 7 of its judgment, which is extracted as follows: "4. ....... Firstly, the tender notice did not specify the "viability range" not did it say that only the tenders coming within the viability range will be considered. More significantly, the tender notice did not even say that after receiving the tenders, the Commissioner/Government would first determine the "viability range" and would then call upon the lowest eligible tenderer to make a counter-offer. The exercise of determining the viability range and calling upon Dutta Associates to make a counteroffer on the alleged ground that he was the lowest tenderer among the eligible tenderers is outside the tender notice. Fairness demanded that the authority should have notified in the tender notice itself the procedure which they proposed to adopt while accepting the tender. They did nothing of that sort....... 5. It is thus clear that the entire procedure followed by the Commissioner and the Government of Assam in accepting the tender of Dutta Associates (appellant herein) is unfair and opposed to the norms which the Government should follow in such matters, viz., openness, transparency and fair dealing. The grounds 1 and 2 which we have indicated herein above, are more fundamental than the third ground upon which the High Court has allowed the writ appeal. 7. In the circumstances, we affirm the judgment of the Division Bench in writ appeal on the grounds stated above..... We reiterate that whatever procedure the Government proposes to follow in accepting the tender must be clearly stated in the tender notice." 20. The reasoning laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the tender notice is applicable to the brochure of July 2007 in question with equal force. Applying the same, the action of the respondents in awarding average mark for the petitioners as partners by adopting different evaluation method, other than the one mentioned in the brochure cannot stand the legal test. 21. In that event the next question arises as to whether by applying the evaluation method as specified in the brochure, the petitioners claim to place them in the I rank can be legitimately accepted? 22. 21. In that event the next question arises as to whether by applying the evaluation method as specified in the brochure, the petitioners claim to place them in the I rank can be legitimately accepted? 22. The fact remains undisputed is that the first petitioner is individually given full five marks under the head income and the petitioner jointly as partners are awarded only 2.5 marks which is the average of 5 marks prescribed for income. It is no doubt true that the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise any grievance regarding the marks awarded to the second respondent who applied for distributorship in his individual capacity. However, what is appealled to this court is that by applying the evaluation method as given in brochure the marks awarded to the first petitioner under the head income i.e., full five marks is to be automatically awarded to the partners under the same head in the joint application and in that event, the mark awarded to the petitioners as partners will go high which will automatically push the petitioners as partners to the I place. Such claim is, in my opinion, in consonance with the procedure prescribed in the brochure. Once the conclusion is arrived at that the evaluation mode adopting the average marks of the partners is not proper and once the evaluation mode as set out in the brochure is held to be applicable as per which the finance of one partner to be treated as finance of the partnership the logical conclusion to be drawn is that the marks to be awarded to the petitioners as partners under the head income instead of 2.5 would be 5, which is the marks awarded to the first petitioner individually and the quantum of marks automatically increased to 92.5 and the petitioners are as partners to be consequently placed in the first position over and above the second respondent who has secured only 92 and he will have to be pushed down to the second place. If that is so, the petitioners as partners are legitimately entitled to get the dealership as sought for in this writ petition. 23. If that is so, the petitioners as partners are legitimately entitled to get the dealership as sought for in this writ petition. 23. Though the learned counsel for the respondents has in the course of hearing brought to the notice of this court that one of third party individual applicants has after revaluation awarded 91.5 marks and is placed above the petitioners as partners (who are originally awarded 90 marks) the same does not in any manner alter or affect the claim of the petitioners because had full 5 marks been awarded to them as partners the total marks secured by them comes to 92.5 and there is no difficulty in deciding the issue raised herein in the absence of the other individual. 24. The writ petition is filed after declaring the result and before the award of distributorship in favour of the second respondent herein, who is originally declared as the successful candidate. This court is while disposing of the interim injunction application pleased to observe that any award of distributorship in favour the second respondent is subject to the out come of the writ petition. The first respondent has in para 11 at page 6 in the counter filed on 20.01.2010 categorically stated that the question of award of distributorship to any one does not arise for consideration at this stage and further norms to be allowed before even the candidate placed in the first rank is awarded the distributorship by the corporation. It is nobodys case that the distributorship is in furtherance of the order of this court actually awarded in favour of the second respondent. That being the factual position the first respondent is to be hence directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for placing him in the first rank in the light of the discussion held above in the foregoing paragraphs. 25. That being the factual position the first respondent is to be hence directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for placing him in the first rank in the light of the discussion held above in the foregoing paragraphs. 25. In the result, the action of the first respondent in placing the second respondent in the first position for award of Indane Gas Distributorship for Tambaram Area is declared as illegal and consequently the first respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for the first rank and for award of distributorship in favour of the petitioners as partners by adopting the evaluation mode as specified in the brochure and also in the light of the discussion held above by this Court and the whole exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 26. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. 14.1.Allocation of marks on various parameters based on documents will be carried out as per the information given in the application. 26. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. 14.1.Allocation of marks on various parameters based on documents will be carried out as per the information given in the application. Parameter Sub head Description Max Marks Evaluation Capability to provide infrastructure and facilities (as on the date of application Suitable land for LPG storage godown/ godown Owns @ - Having clear title/Registered Sales Deed of the suitable land/godown 25 Based on the information & statement given in the application OR Firm offer @@- Having agreement to purchase/lease suitable land/godown 18 Based on the information & statement given in the application OR Can arrange 10 Based on the information & statement given in the application Suitable land/shop for showroom Owns @ Having clear title/Registered Sales Deed of the suitable land/shop for showroom 10 Based on the information & statement given in the application OR Firm offer @@- Having agreement to purchase/ suitable land/shop for showroom 7 Based on the information & statement given in the application OR Can arrange 5 Based on the information & statement given in the application Sub total maxim marks 35 Capability to provide finance Financially sound Funds (a) Amount in saving accounts in Bank.(as on date of application) (b) Free and unencumbered fixed deposits in scheduled banks or any other documents/resource which can be readily converted to liquid cash to cover working capital/infrastructure requirements (as on date of advertisement) 18 Based on the information given in the application (Fds/NSCs/Shares/any other investment bonds in the name of self or family members as defined above under relationship clause) Award 0.1 marks on every unit of Rs.10,000/- or more in multiples of Rs.10,000/-and amounts less than complete unit of Rs.10,000/-will not be considered for award of marks. Maximum marks-18.Rs.18,00,000 & above 18.0 marks Capability to provide finance continued... Ability to arrange loan (c) Bankers/Financial institution certificate for credit worthiness and willingness to extend loan, if required. (as on date of application) 7 Based on the letter from Bank/Financial Institution sent with the application. 7 marks in case no Credit worthiness certificate from bankers/financial institutions but Funds are more than 20 lakhs as mentioned at (a) & (b) above. Otherwise marks to be awarded on the basis of certificate from bankers/financial institutions as under:- Range of loan Rs. 7 marks in case no Credit worthiness certificate from bankers/financial institutions but Funds are more than 20 lakhs as mentioned at (a) & (b) above. Otherwise marks to be awarded on the basis of certificate from bankers/financial institutions as under:- Range of loan Rs. Marks to be awarded >=2 lac to < 4 lac 1 >=4 lac to < 6 lac 2 >=6 lac to < 7 lac 3 >=7 lac to < 8 lac 4 >=8 lac to < 9 lac 5 >=9 lac to < 10 lac 6 >=10 lac 7 Assets (d) Fixed and other assets (as on date of advertisement) 5 Based on information of application. 5 marks in case no immovable and moveable property but funds are more than 20 lakhs as mentioned at (a & (b) above. Other wise marks to be awarded as under. Range of assets value Marks to be awarded >=3 lacs < 6 lacs 1 mark >=6 lacs <9 lacs 2 mark >=9 lacs <12 lacs 3 marks >=12 lacs < 15 lacs 4 marks >=15 lacs 5 marks Income (e) Income from all sources such as salary, property, business, agricultural, interest, dividend, rent earnings, royalty etc. per annum 5 Based on information of application. Income as per Income Tax Return of the last financial year and or affidavit on income Maximum Marks 5. Award 0.1 marks on every unit of Rs.10,000/- or more in multiples of Rs.10,000/- and amounts less than complete unit of Rs.10,000/- will not be considered for award of marks. Sub total maximum marks 35 **EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION (as on date of application) Basic Matriculate/SSC/Xth pass XIIth pass Graduate Post graduates or higher qualifications 7 8 10 12 Based on information & documents given in the application Additional qualification Any Diploma/Degree Basic qualification plus 1 mark for additional qualification any diploma/degree Professional Technical/Law/Medical/Management Graduate/Chartered/Cost Accountant or higher qualifications – BE, B.Tech, MBA, CA or equivalent minimum 4 years post 12th 15 Sub Total maximum marks **AGE Marks will be awarded on the following basis >=56 < =65 >65 0 15 >=21 < 26 >=26 < 46 > =46 < 56 2 4 2 1 Based on information & documents given in the application Sub Total Maximum marks 4 14.2. Evaluation based on Interview. Evaluation based on Interview. Parameter Sub Head Description Max Marks Evaluation Direct Sale/Home Delivered products (including LPG distributorship) or 4 Marks to be awarded based on information in the application for experience of running or working in an establishment for minimum one year. Marks will be awarded on the quality rather than amount of experience. The quality of experience Other Petroleum products 3 Any other Trade 2 Sub Total maximum marks 4 Business ability/acumen Assessment will be done on the following:- -Management of people -Management of finance -Management of material & infrastructure-Trade related 5 Marks will be awarded based on response to specific situation related queries/questions on the following:--Management of people -Management of finance -Management of material & infrastructure-Trade related **Personality Assessment on the following parameters Communication/articulation skills. Polite, Presentable and well mannered. Enthusiasm/energetic/Self-confidence/convincing power 2 Assessment based on observation and leading questions Grand total 100