Judgment (1) PETITIONER has filed this petition against the order dated 29-10-2009, Annexure P-1, by which the result for location Shivpuri under open category has been cancelled and re-interview for the candidates has been ordered. (2) RESPONDENT No. 1 issued an advertisement for LPG Distributors Dealership at Shivpuri under open category. The petitioner along with other persons applied for the aforesaid dealership. The petitioner and other eligible candidates, total 5 in number, were called for interview. The Committee awarded marks to the petitioner and other candidates. After selection, as per the Corporation respondents, complaints were received against the selection and award of marks. Some other candidates also filed petitions before this Court, which have been registered as Writ Petition No. 3199/09 and 1296/09, before this High Court for quashing the selection. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation investigated into the complaints and it was noticed that the committee has erroneously awarded marks to the candidates and consequently, the Corporation decided to scrap the Panel prepared by the Committee and cancelled the result. The Corporation further decided to hold re-interview of all the candidates. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the decision of the Corporation to cancel the interview and cancellation of allotment of marks by the earlier committee is arbitrary and illegal. The Committee awarded proper marks to the petitioner and the petitioner has rightly been placed at serial No. 1 in the select-list. No opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner prior to cancellation of select-list, hence, the action is in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions the learned counsel relied on the following judgments :- (1) Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India and others, (2000) 7 SCC 120 ; (2) Karam Kapathi and others vs. M/s Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and another, 2010 AIR SCW 2697; (3) M/s Poddar Steel Corporation vs. M/s Ganesh Engineering Works and others, AIR 1991 SC 1579 . (3) THE undisputed facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 by the Committee in the select-list. THEreafter, the Corporation received complaints in regard to marks awarded by the Committee for experience. THE complaints were investigated by an Investigating Officer appointed by the State Head. Copy of the report dated 12-10-2009 submitted by DGM has been filed along with the additional reply. THEreafter, the Corporation received complaints in regard to marks awarded by the Committee for experience. THE complaints were investigated by an Investigating Officer appointed by the State Head. Copy of the report dated 12-10-2009 submitted by DGM has been filed along with the additional reply. It has been mentioned in this report that the petitioner in his application has mentioned experience in other trades under the head of Experience and the Committee awarded 3 marks under the aforesaid head to the petitioner. However, as per the criteria fixed by the Corporation the petitioner was entitled only 2 marks against 'experience in any other trade'. Hence, the marks awarded to the petitioner has been revised and it has been found that the petitioner was entitled only total 95.25' marks. THE Committee after revision of marks found that Mr. Tarun Agrawal was entitled to be placed at serial No. 1. Because, there was discrepancy in award of marks, hence it has been recommended to cancel the merit panel and cancel the result prepared by the Committee. THE Corporation further decided to re-interview all the candidates. (4) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation - respondent has also produced the photo copies of the application form submitted by the petitioner. In the application form against clause No. 12 of 'Experience' the petitioner has clearly mentioned that he has experience of 'any other trade'. He himself crossed the columns of 'Direct Sale / Home delivery of products (including LPG Distribution) and other petroleum products. As per the parameters fixed by the Corporation for the purpose of allocation of marks on various heads, only two marks could be awarded against the head of 'Experience in any other trade'. The relevant criteria is as under :- "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 qualification 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 and g will be done based on the interview." "14.2 Evaluation based on interview Parameter Sub Head Description Max. Marks Evaluation Experience 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 will be judged based on the response to the questions related to experience in Direct Sale, Home Delivered products, Trade of petroleum products, hospitality/service industry etc. by the candidates in the interview." Other Petroleum products or 3 Any other Trade 2 Sub Total maximum marks 4 (5) FROM the aforesaid criteria it is clear that if a candidate has experience of any other trade, he is entitled only two marks. The petitioner himself mentioned in clause 12 of his application form under the head 'Experience in any other trade'. (6) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has submitted that it was only a technical mistake committed by the petitioner at the time of filling of the application form and the Interview Committee has rightly ignored it. However, I am not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner with open eyes has mentioned his experience in any trade. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to award 2 marks only. The petitioner cannot be rewarded for his negligence. Hence, in my opinion, the Corporation has not committed any mistake in scraping the interview. The another point argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before cancellation of merit list, is also not acceptable because as per principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board and another vs. K. Shyam Kumar and others, 2010 (6) SCC 614 . The principle of natural justice is applicable in the case of post decisional hearing. However, when during process it has came to the knowledge of the employer or management that certain irregularities have been committed then management has a right to cure the aforesaid irregularity. The principle of natural justice is applicable in the case of post decisional hearing. However, when during process it has came to the knowledge of the employer or management that certain irregularities have been committed then management has a right to cure the aforesaid irregularity. From the report submitted by the Management dated 12-10-2009, it is clear that after due scrutiny it has been found that earlier Committee has not awarded proper marks, in my opinion, the Authority has not committed any irregularity in not affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (7) CONSEQUENTLY, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. It is hereby clarified that the Committee in fresh re-interview shall award the marks in accordance with the criteria fixed by the Corporation without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in this order or on the basis of the report submitted by DGM dated 12-10-2009. Looking to the facts of the case, there shall be order as to costs. Petition dismissed.