Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 350 (GAU)

Anand Kumar Pandey v. Union of India

2016-05-03

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 3.6.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No. 431 of 2013. 2. Facts in short are these. On 14.9.2011, Respondent No.2 – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited published an advertisement inviting applications for appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer at Lakhipur, Ward No.4, District Goalpara. In response to this advertisement, appellant and respondent No.5 submitted their applications which were processed for evaluation as per guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet Dealers. Both appellant and Respondent No.5 were then also called for interview on 31.8.2012. According to the statement of performance declared by Respondent No.1, Respondent No.5 secured 94.35 out of total 100 marks whereas appellant secured 93.08 marks. The name of Respondent No.5 was, therefore, shown at Sl. No.1 in the select list and that of appellant at Sl. No.2. Dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him, the appellant filed a complaint to the Grievance Redressal Forum of Respondent No.1 which was duly investigated but no change of marks was reported vide communication dated 21.1.2013. In the result, Respondent No.1 appointed Respondent No.5 as Dealer of Retail Outlet, in question. Aggrieved, the appellant filed WP(C) No.431/2013 on the ground that his candidature was not properly evaluated. 3. The main thrust of argument of appellant was that 4 marks under description “Fixed and Movable Assets” of parameter “Finance” and sub-head “Financially Sound” of the guidelines were wrongly denied to him. The appellant submitted that had Respondent No.1 awarded 4 marks to him, his marks would have been much more than Respondent No.5. Respondent No.1 in reply denied that any improper evaluation was done. Respondent No.1 submitted that marks were awarded strictly in accordance with the guidelines by the concerned Committees and since after evaluation, Respondent No.5 was found to have secured highest marks, he was appointed as Dealer of the Retail Outlet. Respondent No.5 in his separate reply defended his appointment as Dealer. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet Dealer and norms for evaluating the candidates as well as documents brought on record, disagreed with the appellant and dismissed his petition. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. Respondent No.5 in his separate reply defended his appointment as Dealer. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet Dealer and norms for evaluating the candidates as well as documents brought on record, disagreed with the appellant and dismissed his petition. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. Admittedly, the appointment of Retail Outlet Dealer is to be made by Respondent No.1 in accordance with the guidelines framed for this very purpose. Clause 16 of the guidelines deals with norms for evaluating the candidates. The relevant extract of Clause 16 reads as under:- “16. Norms for evaluating the candidates: (a) The candidates will be assessed under the following parameters and in case one or more of the evaluation parameter is not applicable for any section of applicant or category of dealerships as listed below, the evaluation will be done excluding those marks and evaluating them only on the applicable marks. The maximum marks on which various categories of applicants will be evaluated as under: Dealership Category Evaluation Parameters Individual/Partnership Corpus Fund Locations-Individuals Corpus Fund Locations-Societies Non-individual entities i.e. Corporate House, Organised Bodies, Societies, Charitable Trust Land 35 NA NA 35 Finance 25 25 Education 15 15 Business Generation 10 10 25* 25* Age 4 4 4@ 4@ Experience 4 4 4^ 4^ Business Ability 5 5 7 7 Personality 2 2 Max. Marks 100 40 40 100 Note : Detailed evaluation parameters for Business General, (marked as *), Age (marked as @ and Experience (marked as ^) for Corpus Fund Locations-Societies & Non-individual entities i.e. Corporate House, Organised Bodies, Societies, Charitable Trust are further explained below at item c): b. Allocation of marks on various parameters : Parameter Sub-heads Description Max Marks Evaluation Land and infrastructure (Max. 35 marks) Both for individual & non-individual Suitable Land for retail outlet Having “own land” or having land on long lease (registered) for a minimum period of 15 years with a renewal option of 15 years and willing to give to HPCL on long term lease at rentals acceptable to HPCL. 35 Based on verification of the land title ship documents submitted by the applicant alongwith his application. 35 Based on verification of the land title ship documents submitted by the applicant alongwith his application. Having “firm offer” of land and willing to give to HPCL on long term lease at rentals acceptable to HPCL 25 Finance (Max.25 marks) Both for individual & non-individual Financially sound Ready availability of Finance (20 marks) Based on the verification of the supporting documents submitted by the applicant along with his application. Valuation report duly certified by Govt. approved valuers in support of assets is necessary. Liquid cash in the form of bank balance, Fixed deposits, shares of listed companies etc. 12 Fixed and movable assets includes own land, buildings, shops, house, vehicles etc. 4 Income includes agricultural income, business income, interest, rent, royalty, etc. duly supported by documentary evidence 4 5. The Statement of performance of candidates evaluated by Respondent No.1 showing the marks secured by them is as follows:- “HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. DEALER SELECTION OFFICE :: GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE STATEMENT OF PERFORMANCE OF CANDIDATES INTERVIEWED ON 31.08.2012 AT GUWAHATI FOR REAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP OF HPCL At Lakhipur Ward No.4, Dist – Goalpara, STATE – Assam, Category : OPEN, Category : OPEN Sl . No. Name of the Candidate Capacity to Provide Infrastructure & Facility Capacity to arrange finance (Maximum Marks 25) Educational Qualification Capability to Generate Business (Maximum Marks 10) Age Experience Business acumen Personality Total Marks % Marks Merit Panel Marks awarded by site inspection committee (Marks 100) Marks awarded by L1 Committee Weighted Marks (iii) x (iv)/100 Ready availability of Finance Letter ensuring loan/ credit worthiness Tied up volume Project Report Capability to Generate Business Future Plans (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) Max Marks-Individual/ Partnership 100 35 35 20 5 15 5 3 2 4 4 5 2 100 1 Arun Kumar Bhagat 91.00 35.00 31.85 20.00 5.00 15.00 5.00 1.50 1.83 4.00 4.00 4.17 2.00 94.35 94.35 I 2 Anand Kumar Pandey 95.00 35.00 33.25 16.00 5.00 15.00 5.00 2.50 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.50 1.83 93.08 93.08 II 3 Dinesh Prasad 90.00 35.00 31.50 12.00 5.00 10.00 5.00 1.00 1.67 4.00 4.00 3.83 1.50 79.50 79.50 III MEMBER-I MEMBER-II MEMBER-III” 6. The above statement of performance of candidates which is really a statement of marks reveals that appellant secured more marks than Respondent No.5 under Head “Capacity to provide Infrastructure & facility”. The above statement of performance of candidates which is really a statement of marks reveals that appellant secured more marks than Respondent No.5 under Head “Capacity to provide Infrastructure & facility”. He, therefore, has no grievance against awarding of marks under this Parameter/Head. The appellant under Head “Capacity to arrange finance” and sub-head “Ready availability finance” has been awarded 16 marks as compared to 20 marks awarded to Respondent No.5. The grievance of the appellant is that 4 marks has wrongly been denied to him under this sub-head. 7. As seen from above quoted Clause 16(b) of the guidelines, maximum 25 marks is set apart for allocation under the parameter “finance” with the sub-head “financially sound” and out of 25 marks, 20 marks is allocated for “ready availability of finance” which has further been described into three – (a) liquid cash – 12 marks; (b) “fixed and movable assets” which includes own land, buildings, shops, houses, vehicles etc. – 4 marks and (c) Income – 4 marks. It is also very clearly stipulated in the Clause that evaluation under parameter “finance” shall be based on the verification of supporting documents submitted by the applicant along with his application. It is further stipulated that Valuation Report dully certified by the Government approved valuer in support of the assets shall be necessary. Since the appellant did not submit any document regarding his ownership of property under description “fixed and movable assets” 4 marks were rightly denied to him. The Gift Deed submitted by the appellant with regard to property under this description was admittedly unregistered and only notarized. This Gift Deed being invalid did not confer any ownership of the property mentioned therein to him. Therefore, the concerned Committee rightly did not award any marks to the appellant. Likewise, the Valuation Reports submitted were also not in the name of appellant. The Valuation Reports only mentioned of the family unit and did not speak anything on the individual holding of appellant. We thus agree with Respondent No.1 that in view of the inadequacy of documents like title deed etc. no marks could be awarded to the appellant under description “fixed and movable assets”. Apparently, the candidature of the appellant has rightly been evaluated by Respondent No.1. 8. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.