Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2527 (MAD)

M. Arivusudar v. Senior Regional Manager

2012-06-19

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "HPCL”), had invited applications for the appointment of petrol/diesel retail outlet dealers for the Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Region, by way of a paper advertisement, dated 20.6.2010. The petitioner had applied for petrol/diesel (MS.HSD) retail outlet dealership to be located at Vellichandai to Jittandahalli, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District. The respondent HPCL, after a proper scrutiny of the applications, conducted the interview, on 27.10.2010, as per their guidelines prescribed for the selection of the outlet dealers. Thereafter, eight candidates, including the petitioner, had been called for the interview. A committee, consisting of 3 members, had conducted the interview and had awarded marks to the candidates, under the various categories of assessment. All the relevant documents had been submitted by the petitioner for the necessary scrutiny. The committee had awarded 90.22 marks to the petitioner and therefore, he had been empanelled as the first candidate in the selection list. The second respondent herein, who had secured 87.99 marks, had been empanelled as the second candidate. While so, after a period of 7 months from the publication of the merit panel list, on 23.3.2011, the first respondent had set aside the merit panel list stating that the second empanelled candidate had raised certain objections for not awarding proper marks, in respect of the documents submitted by him. 3. It has been further stated that the first respondent has not issued any notice to the petitioner and no opportunity had been given to him before the merit panel list, dated 27.10.2010, had been set aside. As per clause 19 (a) of the guidelines for the selection of retail outlet dealers, no objection could be raised, in respect of the merit panel list, after a period of one month from the date of the publication of the said list. However, the first respondent had set aside the merit panel list, after a period of nearly 7 months, without following the principles of natural justice. In fact, the petitioner had also raised certain objections, as proper marks had not been awarded to him, in respect of the documents submitted by the petitioner, relating to the immovable property possessed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. In fact, the petitioner had also raised certain objections, as proper marks had not been awarded to him, in respect of the documents submitted by the petitioner, relating to the immovable property possessed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Silambannan, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the first respondent ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before he had passed the impugned proceedings. Further, the assessments made and the marks awarded by the selection committee, consisting of three members, who were experts in their respective fields, cannot be nullified by a single member committee. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, had further submitted that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 23.3.2011, does not make it clear as to whether a fresh selection process would be followed, by the respondents, for making a fresh merit panel list after the merit panel list, already made is set aside, based on the complaint made by the second respondent. Further, when a decision is taken to investigate the complaint, the procedures contemplated, under Clause 19(b) ought to have been followed. The investigation should have been done by a senior officer of the respondent HPCL. He should have passed a speaking order, after giving due opportunity to the complainant, as well as to the other persons, who may be adversely affected by the decision that may be taken by the said Officer. However, no such opportunity had been given to the petitioner by the officer concerned, who had recommended for the setting aside of the merit panel list and for conducting a fresh re-interview to empanel candidates in the merit panel list. 6. He had further submitted that the claim for the grant of dealership should only be between the petitioner and the second respondent. The other candidates, who had participated in the earlier interview, cannot have any say the matter. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent HPCL had submitted that the merit panel list formed, based on the earlier interview by the selection committee consisting of three members, had been set aside, based on the complaint made by the second respondent, with regard to the failure on the part of the committee to award appropriate marks, for the documents submitted by him. On investigation, a senior officer of HPCL had found that appropriate marks had not been awarded to the second respondent, by the selection committee. Therefore, he had recommended for the setting aside of the merit panel list, wherein the name of the petitioner had been listed in the first place. 8. He had further submitted that the guidelines for Selection of Retail Outlet Dealers – 2010, prescribed under clauses 19(a) and (b) had been followed scrupulously. Since, there was no complaint against the marks awarded to the petitioner, he had not been given an opportunity of being heard. The senior officer, who had conducted the investigation, had found that the selection committee had not awarded the appropriate marks to the second respondent and therefore, the merit panel list was liable to be set aside. 9. He had further submitted that, even though the petitioner had submitted a complaint, belatedly, claiming that proper marks had not been awarded, in respect of the documents relating to the immovable property, submitted by him, the said matter had been investigated by a senior officer of HPCL and it had been found that the selection committee is right in not awarding the marks, as the valuation certificate submitted by the petitioner had not been approved by the Government certified valuer. 10. It had been further submitted that all the necessary procedures had been followed, as per the guidelines prescribed for the Selection of Retail Outlet Dealers - 2010, and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in this regard. 11. He had further submitted that only those candidates, who had appeared in the earlier interview, would be called for a fresh interview and for evaluation, by the selection committee, based on which marks would be granted for making a merit panel list for the allotment of dealership. 12. He had placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court, in POONAM KUMARI Vs. JAI PRAKASH PANDEY AND ORS ( AIR 2008 SC 3241 ) in support of his contention that the first respondent was right in setting aside the merit panel list formed earlier and for initiating a fresh selection process, by way of a re-interview. He had further submitted that only the eight candidates, who had participated in the earlier interview, would be called to participate in the fresh selection process. 13. He had further submitted that only the eight candidates, who had participated in the earlier interview, would be called to participate in the fresh selection process. 13. The learned counsel for the second respondent had submitted that the impugned orders had been passed by the first respondent based on the complaint made by the second respondent. The first respondent had rightly set aside the merit panel list, wherein the name of the petitioner had been shown in the first place. The respondent HPCL should follow the guidelines prescribed for the selection of retail outlet dealers to form a fresh panel list for the grant of dealership. 14. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the procedures followed by the respondents are in accordance with the guidelines prescribed for the selection of the retail outlet dealers. The first respondent had set aside the merit panel list of the selected candidates, as it had been found that the selection committee had not followed the proper guidelines in awarding the marks to the second respondent, based on the documents submitted by him. 15. Further, the complaint made by the petitioner had also been considered by a senior officer of the respondent HPCL. Thereafter, it had been decided that the merit panel list formed earlier had to be set aside and a fresh selection ought to be made from amongst the eight candidates, who had appeared in the earlier interview. Thereafter, a merit panel list is to be prepared for awarding the dealership, as per the prescribed guidelines. 16. As it is seen that there is no infirmity in the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, this Court finds it appropriate to pass an order to dismiss the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the re-interview shall be conducted by the respondent HPCL, as per the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, from amongst the eight candidates, who had participated in the earlier interview. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the re-interview shall be conducted by the respondent HPCL, as per the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, from amongst the eight candidates, who had participated in the earlier interview. It is also made clear that the selection committee should not be influenced, during the re-interview, by the opinions formed and the suggestions given by the Senior Investigating Officer in his report, dated 13.1.2011, based on the complaint submitted by the second respondent, with regard to the allotting of marks by the Selection Committee. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 are closed.