JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the results published on 16.09.2011 by the first respondent, allotting the retail dealership of the respondent Oil Corporation at Kolappalaur, Erode District in favour of the third respondent and consequently direct the first respondent to allot the said dealership to the writ petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is an unmarried woman aged about 42 years and a physically handicapped person, whose parents are no more. The petitioner is stated to be working in a Gas Agency as an Office Assistant from 2005 onwards and prior to that she was working as a Sales Woman in a Gas Agency at Gobichettipalayam from 1992 to 2004. The respondent Oil Corporation issued a notification dated 23.10.2010, calling for application for allotment of retail outlet at various Districts including retail outlet at Gobichettipalaym, Erode District, which is mentioned as serial No.49 of the notification. The said retail outlet was reserved for physically handicapped women category. In the said notification, clause 9 deals with Corpus Fund Facility for women. In terms of sub-clause (b) of clause 9, applications by widows and unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents will not be judged under the head "capability to provide infrastructure and facilities" and "capability to provide finance". These applicants were required to indicate in the application form itself whether they will like to avail the Corpus Fund Facility. In cases where, it is not indicated so in the application form, it will be considered that such applicants would like to get evaluated in line with other applicants i.e., they would be assessed under the heads "capability to provide infrastructure and facilities" and "capability to provide finance". For the purpose of determining the priority to determine to such candidates over other women candidates, the marks secured by other women under these parameters will be included from the total marks secured by them. For the purpose of determining the priority to determine to such candidates over other women candidates, the marks secured by other women under these parameters will be included from the total marks secured by them. Sub-clause (c) of clause 9 states that on their application and subject to satisfaction of Indian Oil Corporation, unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents and widows, selected for dealership in all categories including those which are not reserved for women will be entitled to financial assistance under Corpus Fund as mentioned in clause 8 of the notification. 4. The petitioner submitted her application claiming reservation under Physically Handicapped women category as well as in the category of unmarried women aged more than 40 years. The petitioner indicated her willingness to avail the Corpus Fund Facility by choosing the option "Yes" in column 1(j) of the application. The petitioner also filed an affidavit to the said effect duly notarised and enclosed necessary medical certificate to establish that she is a physically handicapped candidate. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview on 16.09.2011, and she participated along with three other candidates including the third respondent. The results of the interview were published on 16.09.2011, in which it was shown that the third respondent has got more marks than the petitioner and the petitioner was placed in serial No.2 and the third respondent was placed in serial No.1. 5. The petitioner would state that the marks awarded to the third respondent is not in accordance with the norms prescribed in the guidelines and she sent a representation to the first respondent to re-evaluate the same. Since the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner sent a lawyers notice, for which the first respondent has sent a reply. The petitioner also submitted a complaint to the first respondent, for which the first respondent by reply dated 28.11.2011, furnished the details of marks given under the various heads of considerations, which according to the petitioner is not in accordance with the guidelines. The petitioner would state that she was not given any preferential marks for availing the Corpus Fund Facility, though she had clearly indicated that she is willing to avail the same. Likewise, the petitioner was awarded only one mark out of four marks for experience, which is incorrect, as she is entitled to get full four marks for her experience. The petitioner would state that she was not given any preferential marks for availing the Corpus Fund Facility, though she had clearly indicated that she is willing to avail the same. Likewise, the petitioner was awarded only one mark out of four marks for experience, which is incorrect, as she is entitled to get full four marks for her experience. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the selection of the third respondent for grant of retail outlet dealership on two grounds namely, that the first respondent failed to give preferential mark to the petitioner for availing Corpus Fund Facility and not awarding full four marks for her experience. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made elaborate submissions and invited the attention of this Court to the notification and submitted that the manner in which the petitioner's application was evaluated, was not in accordance with the guidelines and therefore, the selection of the third respondent has to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation by relying upon the counter affidavit submitted that four applicants had applied for the said retail outlet dealership and their applications were scrutinised and declared eligible. The Selection Committee comprising of three Senior Officers as nominated by the competent authority, assessed the applications and awarded marks based on the documents submitted by the applicants. This committee is called as L-1 Committee. Thereafter, second committee termed as L-2 Committee consisting of three Officers conducted the interview to assess the ability of the candidate on experience, business ability and personality. Immediately on the same day, the mark list combining the findings of L-1 and L-2 Committees were displayed in the notice board and the candidates were ranked according to their merit. It is further submitted that the advertisement calling for dealership selection and also the brochures containing the parameters on which the candidates will be assessed so that all participants are aware of the procedure adopted. The procedure is to ensure transparency and fairness in the selection process. 8. It is further submitted that as per the condition in the brochure any candidate applying for dealership, who is willing to avail the Corpus Fund Scheme should indicate so in their application. If a candidate avails such facility, the candidate will not be assessed under "capability to provide infrastructure" and "capability to provide finance". 8. It is further submitted that as per the condition in the brochure any candidate applying for dealership, who is willing to avail the Corpus Fund Scheme should indicate so in their application. If a candidate avails such facility, the candidate will not be assessed under "capability to provide infrastructure" and "capability to provide finance". For determining the priority to be given to such candidates over other women candidates not opted for Corpus Fund Facility. The marks secured by other women candidates under these parameters will be included from the total marks secured by them. Though the petitioner indicated her willingness to avail Corpus Fund facility, she also provided the details of land available with her in the application by enclosing necessary documents and also indicated her ability to provide finance to the extent of Rs.26,00,000/-. Therefore, L-1 Committee assessed the petitioner's application and awarded marks based on documents provided under the parameters of "capability to provide finance" and "capability to provide infrastructure facility". The petitioner is stated to have secured 24.75 marks out of 25 marks like other candidates under "capability to provide infrastructure facility" and with regard to "capability to provide finance" the petitioner secured equivalent marks as that of the other candidates under loan arranging capacity, funds, other assets, but secured less marks under the caption 'income' because as per the brochures for securing full four marks, the candidate should have Rs.60000/- as annual income, whereas the petitioner's annual income was Rs.36,000/- and she was awarded 2.4 marks out of 4 marks. Regarding the experience, the brochure provides that any managerial experience in Petroleum trade business will be counted for granting full four marks and as the petitioner had produced certificate to the effect that she had worked as Office Clerk and Sales Woman, she was awarded only one mark against four marks. As regards the educational qualification, the petitioner was awarded 12 marks and the third respondent was awarded 10 marks, as she had only minimum educational qualification. 9. As regards the educational qualification, the petitioner was awarded 12 marks and the third respondent was awarded 10 marks, as she had only minimum educational qualification. 9. It is further submitted that the petitioner is under the wrong impression that priority will be given for candidates opting for Corpus Fund Facility, whereas the guideline does not give any such preference except that the candidate will not be assessed under the criteria "capability to provide finance" and "capability to provide infrastructure facilities", as the petitioner submitted all documents under both these criteria, her application was evaluated by the L-1 Committee on both these criteria. It is further submitted that as per clause 8(c) of the advertisement other things being equal, unmarried woman above 40 years of age without earning parents will be given preference over others in location reserved for women category. Therefore, such preference will come into operation, when there is a tie in the number of marks for the first empanelled candidates or the candidates holding rank No.1, the petitioner was rank No.2 based on her over all performance as per the marks obtained and awarded by the L-1 and L-2 Committees. The complaint given by the petitioner was investigated and it was found that the complaint was not sustainable and the findings of the investigation were communicated to the petitioner, by proceedings dated 28.11.2011 and the petitioner has not challenged the said order by bringing any materials and she is seeking to challenge the selection before this Court, as if the writ petition is an appellate remedy over the selection process. Further, the petitioner has not made any allegations of any unfairness on the land Evaluation Committee. It is further submitted that the marks awarded for experience is perfectly valid, since the petitioner has not worked in a managerial capacity in a retail outlet or as COCO contractors for securing four marks. Therefore, it is submitted that the selection of the third respondent is perfectly valid. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ritu Mahajan vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 506 , and in the case of Sanjeesh Babu vs. N.K. Santhosh & ors., reported in[2013-2-L.W.193]. 10. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ritu Mahajan vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 506 , and in the case of Sanjeesh Babu vs. N.K. Santhosh & ors., reported in[2013-2-L.W.193]. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent by relying upon the counter affidavit reiterating the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent Oil Corporation submitted that even if the petitioner's assessment under the category of "capability to arrange finance" and "capability to arrange infrastructure" is over looked, yet the third respondent has secured 0.67 marks over and above the petitioner and therefore, there is no error in the selection. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Before examining the facts of the case and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the first aspect to be considered, is regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to go into the selection process, more particularly, when there is no allegation of malafide against the experts, who conducted the selection process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeesh Babu, referred supra, while considering the correctness of a decision of the High Court of Kerala pertaining to application of candidate for selection to Bharat Gas Distributorship by placing reliance on an earlier decision in the case of Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 , pointed out that it is a settled legal position that Courts have to show deference and considerations to the recommendations of an expert committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field, when there is no allegation of malafides, it would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of selection of this nature to the experts, who are more familiar with the technicalities/nature of the work. The Expert Committee having evaluated the experience certificate produced by the candidate, interviewed him by putting specific questions as to direct sale, home delivered products, hospitality/service industry etc., and awarded marks, the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made by the Expert Committee. The Expert Committee having evaluated the experience certificate produced by the candidate, interviewed him by putting specific questions as to direct sale, home delivered products, hospitality/service industry etc., and awarded marks, the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made by the Expert Committee. It was further held that the High Court was not justified in upsetting the decision of the Selection Committee, particularly in the absence of any malafides against the Selection Committee and there is no warrant for direction to reassess the marks of the appellant therein afresh. In the light of the detailed explanation offered by the corporation about the mode of selection. 13. Bearing the above mentioned legal principle, we shall proceed to examine the contentions raised by the petitioner. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner raised two contentions, firstly by contenting that she is entitled to preference, as she has availed the Corpus Fund Facility. The said contention lacks merit for the simple reason that the notification does not provide for any preference for a candidate, who avails Corpus Fund facility. In the case on hand, though the petitioner has exercised the option to avail Corpus Fund facility, which is for candidates, who are not able to provide infrastructure facilities or provide finance, yet the petitioner in her application in column 8 has provided the details regarding infrastructure facilities and financial capacity. The petitioner in column 8(a) has indicated that she has site readily available at New No.407/2, Gopi-Dharapuram Main Road, Kolappalur village, Erode District measuring an extent of 12100sqft., and she has a registered lease agreement in her favour from the owners of the said property. As regards the capacity to provide finance, the petitioner has indicated that she has a Corpus of Rs.26,00,000/- in her bank account. The petitioner having furnished those details, L-1 Committee rightly evaluated the petitioner under the category "capability of providing infrastructure" and "capability of providing finance". Thus, the petitioner having consciously chosen to provide those details regarding infrastructure and finance, cannot now take a plea that merely because she chose to avail Corpus Fund Facility, she should be given preference. The explanation of the petitioner that she did the same by way of abandon caution is to be stated to be rejected. Thus, the petitioner having consciously chosen to provide those details regarding infrastructure and finance, cannot now take a plea that merely because she chose to avail Corpus Fund Facility, she should be given preference. The explanation of the petitioner that she did the same by way of abandon caution is to be stated to be rejected. Furthermore, advertisement issued by the Corporation in clause 8(e) states that only when other things being equal, unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents and widows will be given preference over others in locations reserved for women category. Therefore, this preferential clause will come into operation only when there is a tie between two candidates, who secured equal marks and not being factually so in the case on hand, the interpretation given by the petitioner is thoroughly devoid of merits. 14. Admittedly, the third respondent has secured more marks than that of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the question of applying clause 8(e) does not arise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ritu Mahajan, referred supra, considered the very question regarding preference for unmarried woman above 40 years of age without earning parents and held that such preference can be extended only when other things being equal and when there is a candidate with higher merit all factors and consideration, cannot be said to be equal. Therefore, the first contention raised by the petitioner stands rejected. 15. The second contention raised by the petitioner is that she should have been awarded full marks for her experience. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that clause 13.1.1 of the brochure deals with norms for evaluating the candidates under the parameter experience, the maximum marks that would be allowed for individuals as well as non-individuals is 4 and under the column evaluation, it is stated that in case of individual, experience of retail trade of petroleum products will include experience of having worked as Manager in retail outlet or COCO contractor. The petitioner's case is that the evaluation does not state that the experience possessed by the petitioner as Office Clerk cannot be taken into consideration, since the clause says experience of retail trade will include managerial experience and therefore, the experience as Clerk should have been considered and full four marks should have been awarded. The petitioner's case is that the evaluation does not state that the experience possessed by the petitioner as Office Clerk cannot be taken into consideration, since the clause says experience of retail trade will include managerial experience and therefore, the experience as Clerk should have been considered and full four marks should have been awarded. I do not agree with the interpretation given by the petitioner to the evaluation clause under clause 13.1.1. In terms of the said clause, the evaluation is done based on the documentary evidence furnished to establish relevant experience, for full marks for experience of one year and proportionately for experience of less than one year is to awarded and in case of individual, managerial experience in a retail outlet or COCO contractor will be included. The petitioner enclosed two certificates for her experience which shows that the petitioner was working as a Sales Woman in a Gas Agency from 1999 to 2005 and as an Office Clerk in other Gas Agency from 01.06.2005 till 2010, whereas the third respondent has worked as Assistant Manager in a retail outlet. Therefore, proportionately she has been given marks and the petitioner having not worked in a managerial capacity, she has been assessed by the Selection Committee and awarded one mark. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the decision of the expert body and interfere in the manner in which the candidate's experience has been assessed, it is best that these matters are left to the experts in the field and this Court will not substitute its opinion to that of the opinion recorded by the L-2 Selection Committee. It is not as if, the petitioner has not been awarded any mark, but has been awarded one mark, as she had worked as a Sales Woman and Office Clerk in the past. Hence, this Court is not inclined to accept the case of the petitioner. 16. For all the above reasons, the petitioner has not made out a case for interference with the selection process conducted by the respondent Oil Corporation. 17. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.