It is undisputed that an advertisement was issued for allotment of one Retail Outlet dealership of petrol pump at Dhariwal.
Rani Gauba Smt.
2, Ritu 36 55 21 112 Mahajan No.
In addition, the oil companypanies were also to provide an adequate working capital for a full operation cycle for the operation of the dealership distributorship.
In the said advertisement, it was mentioned that in respect of the locations reserved for women only, on receipt of their application for Retail Outlet Dealerships SKO LDO Dealerships LPG Distributorship, other things being equal, preference would be given to unmarried women above 40 years of age and widows.
The appellant Ritu Mahajan, deceased fifth respondent Smt.
In the said case, this companyrt by the judgment and order dated 20 12 2002 reported in 2003 2 SCC 673 companystituted a companymittee of two Judges companyprising Mr. Justice S.C. Agarwal, a former Judge of this Court and Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri, a former Judge of the Delhi High Court, to examine 413 cases including the present case pertaining to the allotment to the fifth respondent.
Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in terms of the advertisement for allotment of the petrol pump, the minimum educational qualification was matriculation but the fifth respondent neither attached the matriculation certificate along with the Application Form number the same was even produced at the time of interview and her application was wrongly entertained and, therefore, the said application was liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
At the time of submitting the application for allotment, the appellant was 28 years of age and was married.
She had companypleted B.E. Electricals from Punjab University, Patiala and had an experience of approximately about 1 years as an in charge of R D Section of M s. Standard Electricals Ltd. The Gross Income including self, spouse and dependent children was shown to be Rs.
1 herein issued an advertisement in the Tribune dated 22.06.2000 whereby allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership SKO LDU Dealership and LPG distributorship was advertised.
She was a widow and had an experience of near about 4 years of running a P.C.O. The Board was required to assess and allot marks to the candidates under three categories and the marks obtained by the appellant and fifth respondent are as under CATEGORY APPELLANT FIFTH RESPONDENT Personality, Business Ability 36 38 Salesmanship Educational Qualification 55 45 General level of intelligence General Assessment 21 27 Total 112 110 Under the said three categories the total marks obtained by the appellant was more than the fifth respondent.
The said amount was to be re payed in 100 equal monthly installments alongwith interest 11 per annum and the first installment was to begin from 13th month of companymissioning of dealership.
72,376/ p.m. On the other hand the fifth respondent was alleged to be Matriculate and was of 47 years of age at the time of submission of application.
The Division Bench who heard the matter, however, passed the impugned order dated 01.02.2002 holding that the fifth respondent was eligible for allotment of retail outlet dealership and the Board did number companymit any illegality in selecting and recommending the name of fifth respondent for allotment of the said dealership.
Rani Gauba and others applied for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership at Dhariwal, which was reserved for women only.
The aforesaid findings and the companyclusions of the Board were challenged in writ petition.
Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order of the Division Bench, the present appeal was filed on which we heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties and also scrutinized the documents placed on record.
1 Rani 38 45 27 110 Gauba No.
The Committee, therefore, took out the marks allotted in the aforesaid two categories and the total marks obtained by the three candidates were found as follows Personality,Educational General Total Business Qualification Assessment Ability Gen. Level of Salesman Intelligence Ship No.
25 by the Chairman to the appellant and fifth respondent was unjustified and was held as arbitrary.
Paramjeet Kaur.
So far as the category with respect to Personality, Business ability and Salesmanship is companycerned the companymittee observed that the fifth respondent was running PCO since 1996 whereas the appellant Ritu Mahajan was working as Incharge of R D Section of M s Standard Electricals Ltd. in 1995 97, and therefore, it cannot be said that the fifth respondent is having better experience than the appellant.
The appellant protested against the selection of the fifth respondent on the ground that she was number eligible to be companysidered for selection and even otherwise she was inferior to the appellant in all respects on the basis of the criteria laid down.
The Committee, thereafter, having recorded the aforesaid findings proceeded to examine whether there was any arbitrary allotment of marks to any of the candidates and on examining the first category, namely, Educational Qualification General Level of Intelligence it was found that the fifth respondent is matriculate whereas the appellant Ritu Mahajan is B.E. Electrical .
The relevant portion of the said report is placed on record as Annexure P 3 at page 120 of the paper book.
Refuting the aforesaid submission, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, learned senior companynsel appearing for the fifth respondent specifically stated that her qualification was matriculation and along with her application she also produced school leaving certificate, which would indicate that she had passed her matriculation in the year 1969.
Upon companysidering the said qualifications, it was found that the allotment of equal marks viz.
But, there were two more categories, namely, Capability to Arrange Finance and Capability to provide Infrastructure Facilities on which also assessment was made.
Ritu Mahajan and Smt.
The aforesaid interview was taken by Dealers Selection Board for short Board and after companypletion of the said interview a merit list was prepared in which the fifth respondent was placed at first position and the appellant was placed at the second position.
It was stated in the said Report that the Board was number required to allot any marks in two categories i.e. Capability to arrange finance and Capability to provide Infrastructure Facility as the said outlet was a Company Owned Company Operated Retail Outlet and the finance was to be made available in easy terms from the companypus funds to the selected candidates in such reserved category.
As there was only one outlet to be allotted at Dhariwal, in terms of the position in the merit list the letter of intent was issued to the fifth respondent.
The protest of the appellant, however, did number find favour with the Corporation or the Board and they refused to cancel the allotment in favour of the fifth respondent.
In this appeal, we are companycerned with the issue regarding allotment of a Petrol Pump at Dhariwal, which was reserved for women candidate.
Pursuant to receipt of the said applications the appellant, the deceased fifth respondent as also others were called for interview on 24.04.2001.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 01.02.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that there was numberinfirmity in the selection of fifth respondent for allotment of the Retail Outlet Dealership.
In the said advertisement one retail outlet, which was to be set at Dhariwal was also advertised.
The two members allotted better marks to appellant than the fifth respondent whereas the Chairman allotted higher marks to fifth respondent as companypared with appellant.
It was also mentioned that the Oil Companies would also provide the above women an adequate working capital for a full operation cycle for the operation of the Dealership Distributorship.
Thus Capability to arrange finance and Capability to provide Infrastructure Facility companyld number have been relevant and material criteria.
Indian Oil Corporation respondent No.
In the said Report, it was mentioned that on the basis of the marks awarded by the members of the Board at the interview, the name of following applicants, in the order of merit, was published on 24.04.2001 Smt.
Consequently the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court with a prayer for quashing of the allotment in favour of the fifth respondent with a further prayer that the appellant be allotted the aforesaid Petrol Pump.
After marking on the later two criteria the fifth respondent was found with the maximum marks and was placed at Serial No.
The Committee companystituted by this Court examined the records and submitted a Report.
1 with 112 marks, while the fifth respondent companyes at serial No.
It may, however, be mentioned at this stage that in a case filed before this Court, titled as Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India the issues with regard to the allotment of marks, the criteria followed by the said Board in allotting marks to various candidates were challenged on the ground that the selection was based on Political Consideration.
3 39 40 22 101 Sagarika On the face of the Total Marks obtained, the companymittee found that the appellant companyes at serial No.
The said petrol pump was reserved for women category and that other things being equal, preference was to be given to unmarried women above 40 years of age without earning parents and widows.
2 with 110 marks.
It was also submitted that fifth respondent was selected on the basis of overall assessment, in which she was found by the Board to be more companypetent than the appellant and the said decision having been upheld by the High Court the same should number be interfered by this Court.
