Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 461 (MAD)

P. Rajendran v. Chairman, HPCL 17J, Mumbai

2019-02-18

K.KALYANA SUNDARAM, R.THARANI

body2019
JUDGMENT : R. Tharani, J. 1. Heard Mr.R.Balakrishnan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Mr.M.Sridher, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. This appeal is filed against the order passed in W.P.(MD)No. 8761 of 2013 dated 21.03.2014. 3. The appellant herein is the petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. The case of the writ petitioner/appellant is that the writ petitioner belongs to scheduled caste community. The third respondent issued a notice on 28.12.2011 in a Tamil Daily, inviting application for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) at Gopalpatti/Vembarpatti, Dindigul District. It is stated that the writ petitioner gave an application on 27.01.2012. The respondents called upon the writ petitioner to submit proof of ownership of the land, as per the letter in Ref: CLRO/RGGLV-2011-2012, dated 30.11.2012. The writ petitioner submitted the proof of ownership of the land and filed an affidavit in the prescribed format from the family unit. The third respondent awarded 35 marks for the writ petitioner for the educational qualification, 40 marks for the amount in SBI Account, 10 marks for ability to arrange bank loan from SBI and 10 marks for field verification and totally awarded 95 marks. The petitioner obtained second rank in the final list and he was also fully qualified in the draw for selection of RGGLV for Gopalpatti/Vembarpatti, Dindigul District. The third respondent directed the writ petitioner to appear on 26.10.2012 along with Photo Id Card before the Branch office, Madurai. In the interview, the writ petitioner was declared as a selected candidate. Thereafter there was no information from the third respondent and the writ petitioner sent a representation requesting them to expedite the issuance of letter of intent at the earliest. As a reply, the writ petitioner received a letter dated 14.05.2013 stating that upon scrutiny of the documents produced by the writ petitioner during the field verification, it was found and established that he is not qualified as he has secured only 56.6 marks and hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent. 4. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the selection process for award of RGGLV consists of three stages i.e., L1 to L3. L1 stage is mere scrutiny of the documents. 4. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the selection process for award of RGGLV consists of three stages i.e., L1 to L3. L1 stage is mere scrutiny of the documents. It is admitted that the writ petitioner was awarded 95 marks in L1 stage and was declared as a selected candidate in the draw conducted on 26.10.2012, but the Field Verification Committee found major defects in the documents. As per the guidelines, the petitioner must have a bank balance of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) in SB account on the date of application but the petitioner was having only Rs.52,554/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Four only) in the SB Account. As per the advertisement, the applicant should submit the income Tax returns of the last Financial Year i.e., 2010-2011. But the writ petitioner has submitted the IT returns of the year 2008-2009 and that as per the field verification, the marks obtained by the writ petitioner in the initial stage was revised to 56.5 marks, which is lower than the qualifying mark. The respondents are having every right to reject the application at any stage if they found any defects as per the guidelines. There was redraw on 27.05.2013 and one Manjula was declared as the successful candidate. 5. On the side of the writ petitioner/appellant herein, it is stated that as per the list published by the respondents on 15.10.2012, one S.Palaniammal got 95 marks, the writ petitioner got 95 marks and one C.Manjula got 62.6 marks. Both the petitioner and S.Palaniammal were not given letter of intent. Only with a motive, the dealership was given to C.Manjula. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on merits. Against the dismissal of the writ petition, the writ petitioner/appellant herein has filed this appeal before this Bench. 6. On the side of the writ petitioner/appellant herein, it is stated that the appellant herein has complied with the condition stated in the query letter of the third respondent dated 11.09.2012. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on merits. Against the dismissal of the writ petition, the writ petitioner/appellant herein has filed this appeal before this Bench. 6. On the side of the writ petitioner/appellant herein, it is stated that the appellant herein has complied with the condition stated in the query letter of the third respondent dated 11.09.2012. As per the guidelines, the affidavit filed by the family members of the appellant assuring to give financial assistance to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in case of selection of the appellant as RGGLV are also acceptable for award of marks for proof of income and the appellant already produced the affidavits and as such the order of the third respondent in reducing the mark on the caption of income is not sustainable. 7. On the side of the writ petitioner/appellant herein, it is stated that one Raghunath was selected as RGGLV for the location of Muthanampatti/Palakanuthu/Reddiarchatram, Dindigul district and he has not filed any IT returns and the third respondent wrote letter to him to produce the IT returns and then the third respondent accepted the IT returns sent by him and thereafter, the third respondent issued a letter of intent to him and such opportunity was not extended to the appellant. 8. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the draw was held on 26.10.2012, the third respondent has to conduct the field verification within a period of 30 days. Without conducting the field verification, the third respondent has sent the impugned order in the notice after a huge delay of 200 days and that the appellant is paying the income tax from the year 2007 onwards till the current assessment year and merely rejecting the appellant for RGGLV on the ground of invalid reasons without even following the guidelines for selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak cannot be sustainable. 9. 9. It is further stated that the appellant possess M.A. Decree, he has assets worth more than Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only), the bank assured the appellant to give a loan to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) and that the third respondent failed to state in his counter as to how 95 marks awarded to the appellant was reduced and what are all the variations in the document filed by the appellant and that to prove the income, the appellant has produced the IT returns of the assessment year 2009-2010. Moreover the family members of the appellant has filed affidavit assuring the appellant to give financial assistance of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each and the same is acceptable instead of income tax returns and as per the guidelines, the third respondent should have awarded 10 marks to the appellant and eventhough the appellant has good money transactions, in view of the clerical error committed by the appellant, the appellant's bank balance was Rs.52,554/- and even for that amount, the appellant has to be awarded 6.5 marks. 10. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that calculating the marks for the available bank balance, the marks due for the appellant will be 59.5 marks and if it is rounded, it may be taken as 60 and as such from any calculation, the appellant scored 60 marks and the appellant is eligible to be awarded RGGLV. 11. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the appellant has scored 95 marks in the first round. In the second round, there will be scrutiny of the documents and in the third round, there will be field verification. It is stated that the appellant was disqualified under three grounds, namely first ground is that the appellant was not having Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) in his SB Account on the date of filing of the application. On 27.01.2012, only Rs.52,554/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Four only) is available in his SB Account, second ground is that the appellant has to file income IT return for three financial years and the appellant has filed IT statements and not IT returns and the third ground is that the appellant has filed income statement for the year 2008-2009 but he has not submit IT returns for the year 2010-2011. 12. 12. On the side of the writ petitioner/appellant herein, it is stated that for the agency alloted to SC/ST category, the application can be submitted even if there is no cash of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) in the SB account and that instead of IT returns, the appellant has filed affidavit of this family members which is admissible and that as per Column 4(f) of brochure on selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV), it is stated that in case of RGGLV locations reserved under SC/ST category, applicants with less than Rs.2 lakhs are also eligible to apply. It is stated that as per column 11 of evalution criteria of brochure on selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV), an award of one mark on every unit of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) is to be taken into consideration. 13. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the public body has to go as per norms they have advertised and it is the duty of the appellant to give all the necessary particulars. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of the Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Madurai & Another v. M.Natesan, which reads as follows: “the applicant has to place his credentials, if he is interested, and if the application is incomplete, insufficient, not justified or documents are not produced in support thereof, the appellants cannot grant any marks on that score.” 15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Sajeesh Babu v. N.K.Santhosh & Others, which reads as follows: “18) It is clear that in a matter of appointment/selection by an Expert Committee/Board consisting of qualified persons in the particular field, normally, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts, unless there is any allegation of mala fides against the experts who had constituted the Selection Committee. Admittedly, in the case on hand, there is no allegation of mala fides against the 3 experts in the Selection Committee. Admittedly, in the case on hand, there is no allegation of mala fides against the 3 experts in the Selection Committee. In such circumstances, we are of the view that 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. In the case on hand, the Expert Committee evaluated the experience certificates produced by the appellant herein, interviewed him by putting specific questions as to direct sale, home delivered products, hospitality/service industry etc. and awarded marks. In such circumstances, we hold that the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made by the Expert Committee.” 16. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of G.Bibin Gnanakumar v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and Others in W.A.(MD)No.156 of 2018, which reads as follows: “9. The appellant/writ petitioner is under obligation to fulfil the requirements in terms of the notification and admittedly, the land of the petitioner is located in Karungal village and not in Midalam-A or Midalam-B villages. Insofar as the fulfilment of the required dimension as well as the approach road is concerned, the appellant/writ petitioner claims to have purchased the land subsequent to the said notification and according to him, the said deficiencies had also been made good. In the concerned opinion of this Court, the appellant/writ petitioner is under obligation to strictly comply with the requirements as per the notification and having submitted his candidature as per the notification, he cannot turn around and complain about the said requirement and insofar as other two deficiencies are concerned, it is the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner, that it was made good on account of the subsequent purchase of the adjoining lands. In the concerned opinion of this Court, it may not come to the aid of the appellant/writ petitioner. In the concerned opinion of this Court, the learned Judge has correctly applied the ratio laid down in the above cited decisions and factually also found that the appellant/writ petitioner did not fulfil the required criteria.” 17. A careful consideration of the materials placed on record reveals that the appellant has secured 95 marks in the first stage and he was declared as selected candidate on 26.10.2012. A careful consideration of the materials placed on record reveals that the appellant has secured 95 marks in the first stage and he was declared as selected candidate on 26.10.2012. According to the respondents the selection process consists of three stages, the second stage is scrutiny of the documents and the third stage is the field verification. It is stated that the appellant has not filed IT returns for the financial year 2010-2011 and that the appellant is not having Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) on the date of verification. On the basis of the report of the Field Verification Committee, the marks awarded for the appellant in L1 stage is subsequently revised to 51.5 marks except that there was a vague allegation, the appellant has not established any malafide intention on the part of the third respondent. This Court need not interfere in the selection process unless a malafide intention is proved on the side of the appellant. Even as per the calculation of the appellant, his marks will be 59.5 marks whereas the marks of the selected candidates is 62.6 marks. Even if the marks are revised as per the statement of the appellant, there is no scope for the appellant to succeed. 18. Keeping in view the decisions referred supra and the facts of this case, in our considered opinion, no valid ground has been made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. In that view, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, M.P. (MD)No.1 of 2014 is closed.