M. Panchavarnam vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others

R. Mahadevan, J—W.P(MD) No. 5133 of 2013 has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 18.03.2013 in ref. No. TN/R/Writ Petition 12727 of the first respondent herein and quash the same and consequently declare the petitioner as Rank No. 1 for the Petroleum Outlet Dealership at Silaimalai, Theni District Location and direct the respondents herein to grant Petroleum Outlet Dealership at Silaimalai, Theni District, in favour of the petitioner.

W.P(MD) No. 10228 of 2013 has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Letter of Intent of the second respondent in 2013/IN000032/IN/000001/4103/00001, dated 05.04.2013, issued to the fifth respondent by IOC Limited in respect of its Petroleum Retail Outlet at Silamalai, Bodinaickanur Taluk, Theni District, and quash the same and direct the second respondent herein to issue the Letter of Intent to the petitioner for the commencement of Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealership at Silamalai Village, Bodinaickanur Taluk, Theni District.

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions, is interconnected, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.

Brief facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions, are as follows:

4.1. The first respondent invited the applications for grant of Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealership in various locations including Silamalai in Theni District and it was reserved for women. The petitioner and the fifth respondent applied for the same along with other candidates. Thereafter, the third respondent published the results of the selection process on 15.09.2011, wherein the petitioner was awarded 89.97 marks and the fifth respondent was awarded 90.31 marks out of 100. Hence, the fifth respondent was ranked as No. 1 and the petitioner was No. 2 and the difference in marks between the petitioner and the fifth respondent was 0.34 marks.

4.2. According to the petitioner, since the marks awarded to the fifth respondent were not in accordance with the parameters of the selection process, the petitioner submitted her written objections to the first respondent on 06.10.2011 and thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 12727 of 2011 before this Court seeking a writ of Declaration to declare the selection of the fifth respondent as arbitrary and illegal.

4.3. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court, by order dated 13.12.2012, directed the first respondent to consider the objections submitted by the petitioner after affording due opportunity of hearing to the fifth respondent and decide the matter as per law. Accordingly, the first respondent passed the order dated 18.03.2013, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P(MD) No. 5133 of 2013.

4.4. Pendency of the said writ petition, the second respondent issued the Letter of Intent to the fifth respondent on 05.04.2013, and consequently, the fifth respondent has taken steps to obtain ''No Objection Certificate'' from the District Revenue Officer, Bodinayakanur, for storage of petroleum in the Retail Outlet.

4.5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that Clause No. 19.2 of the selection brochure provides that if any false information is furnished by any applicant, the allotment will be cancelled and dealership will be terminated, in case, it is commissioned and the fifth respondent had fabricated certain documents to satisfy the eligibility criteria, based on which, the fifth respondent has been selected and ranked as No. 1. Therefore, the petitioner has also filed W.P(MD) No. 10228 of 2013 to quash the Letter of Intent issued by the second respondent to the fifth respondent and direct the authorities to issue the same in favour of the petitioner.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 4 in W.P(MD) No. 10228 of 2013, it is among other things stated, thus:

5.1. The procedure for Dealership Selection is transparent and site evaluation of the candidates were done as per the laid down policy guidelines and procedures alone.

5.2. Regarding the marks awarded to the fifth respondent, it is stated that the Interview Committee had awarded the marks to the candidates purely on the basis of their performance and since the difference between the marks obtained by the petitioner and the fifth respondent is only 0.34 marks, it cannot be questioned by the petitioner.

5.3. The petitioner submitted the representation, dated 06.10.2011, objecting to the selection of the fifth respondent and on receipt of the same, it was referred for investigation and till the disposal of the same, the authorities could not proceed with the procedures to issue the Letter of Intent to the fifth respondent and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the authorities had taken steps to issue the Letter of Intent to the fifth respondent, pending disposal of the representation, dated 06.10.2011, is without any basis.

5.4. As per the orders of this Court, passed in W.P(MD) No. 12727 of 2011, an enquiry was conducted by the Executive Director, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry of Indian Oil Corporation and both the parties were summoned to submit their documentary evidence in support of their claim. Thereafter, the Executive Director passed the detailed order rejecting the complaint of the petitioner.

5.5. After taking into consideration all the relevant factors, the respondent Corporation found that the land of the fifth respondent is more suitable than that of the petitioner and hence, the Letter of Intent was issued to the fifth respondent on 05.04.2013.

5.6. Now only, the petitioner made an allegation that the fifth respondent had fabricated certain documents and the same was not brought to the notice of the authorities either by way of a representation or at the time of filing the writ petition in W.P(MD) No. 12727 of 2011 and hence, the allegation made by the petitioner is an afterthought and it is barred by time limit as per Clause 18 of the Selection Brochure. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 prayed for the dismissal of W.P(MD) No. 10228 of 2013.

Denying the allegations made by the petitioner, the fifth respondent has also filed the counter affidavit in W.P(MD) No. 10228 of 2013, wherein, it is contended that the fifth respondent was selected by the authorities as per the selection procedures and they have also conducted the enquiry as per the directions of this Court in W.P(MD) No. 12727 of 2011 and accordingly, the objections of the petitioner were rightly rejected by the Executive Director on consideration of the materials available before him. Further, it is contended that the fifth respondent had invested huge amounts in this process based on the Letter of Intent issued in her favour and in order to prevent the fifth respondent from running the Petroleum Retail Outlet, the petitioner made false allegations. After complying with all necessary eligibility criteria, the fifth respondent was issued with the Letter of Intent and thereby, she applied for ''No Objection Certificate'' from the District Revenue Officer, Theni District and accordingly, the inspection has also been conducted by the District Revenue Officer and at the time of completion of the procedures for issuing the ''No Objection Certificate'', the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to deprive the fifth respondent from running the Petroleum Retail Outlet and thereby, the fifth respondent was put to irreparable loss and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of W.P(MD) No. 10228 of 2013.

Though the other writ petition in W.P(MD) No. 5133 of 2013 was admitted as early as on 17.04.2013, the respondents did not file any counter affidavit in support of their case.

Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms. A.L. Gandhimathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions:

8.1. The respondent Corporation failed to adhere to the procedures laid down for the selection process and had simply thrown away the guidelines while evaluating the candidature of the applicants.

8.2. Though the petitioner and the fifth respondent have obtained equal marks in most of the categories, the respondent Corporation ought not to have rejected the petitioner, by merely stating that the fifth respondent had obtained the highest marks than the petitioner, so to say, 0.34 marks.

8.3. All the way, the petitioner objected to the selection of the fifth respondent contending that the fifth respondent produced bogus documents to come within the eligibility criteria and for that purpose, she played fraud on the respondent Corporation, who did not even care to analyse the same in the light of the written objections submitted by the petitioner in that regard.

8.4. Having furnished the concocted materials before the respondent Corporation, the fifth respondent got herself out of the selection process and the allotment made in favour of the fifth respondent would be liable to be cancelled in view of the false information given by her. In that event, the petitioner would get more marks than that of the other candidates and be ranked as No. 1 in the selection process.

8.5. As per Clause 19.2, the applicant who furnished the false information, would invite cancellation of allotment and here, the fifth respondent had indulged in furnishing the false/bogus affidavits in support of her claim to the respondent Corporation and therefore, it is clear that the allotment made in her favour is liable to be set aside.

8.6. Any violation of the conditions prescribed in the Selection Brochure will lead to disqualification of the candidature of a person who applied for the dealership and as such, the fifth respondent is estopped from making any claim over the same.

8.7. The information received from the concerned Village Administrative Officer and the President of Silamalai Panchayat, would throw light on the fraud committed by the fifth respondent in misleading the respondent Corporation and hence, the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the fifth respondent is liable to be quashed and consequently, the entire selection process itself is vitiated.

8.7. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for allowing these writ petitions.

In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, placed reliance upon the following decisions:

(i) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 1994 SC 853 : (1993) 2 BC 546 : (1993) 6 JT 331 : (1995) 109 PLR 293 : (1993) 4 SCALE 277 : (1994) 1 SCC 1 : (1993) 3 SCR 422 Supp : (1994) 1 UJ 1 , wherein it is laid down thus:

"The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. A person, who''s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.

A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another''s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party."

(ii) John Sundararaj, S. v. Oil Selection Board, etc. & others reported in 1997 Writ L.R. 342, wherein the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:

"5. We have already pointed out that as per condition No. 9 of the conditions, the dealership is liable to be cancelled in case it is subsequently found that the applicant has suppressed material fact as to income. There cannot be a denial of the fact that the wife of the 4th respondent was employed as a teacher in a Higher Secondary School. It is too much on the part of the petitioner to contend before us that he was under the impression that the income of his wife was not required to be included along with his income and therefore, he showed the income of his wife as ''Nil''. It is also further contended that since his wife was not residing with him, her income was not included. It is not disputed before us - rather, it is the case of the petitioner also that he has not divorced his wife and she continues to be his wife and his family consists of his wife, children and also his parents. Thus, it is a case in which there is suppression of the relevant material only with a view to seek allotment of dealership. In the event the income of the wife of the 4th respondent would have been disclosed, he would have been held to be ineligible to seek allotment. So, this is an intentional suppression to make material gain allotment of dealership. In such a case, the authority concerned ought to have taken immediate steps to cancel the dealership, when it was brought to the notice of the authorities that there was material suppression. But it has not been done in spite of the fact that a complaint was given on 1.3.1996. As the authority concerned did not take any action in the matter, the writ petitioner - appellant was compelled to approach this Court, as the petitioner - appellant was one of the applicants.

Thus, this is a case in which there can be no second opinion that the 4th respondent purposely with a view to gain allotment of dealership suppressed the material information as to employment of his wife as a teacher receiving salary of Rs. 47,476/- per year. Consequently, we have no doubt that this is a case in which no further enquiry whatsoever is required. We, accordingly, of the view that there is no justification for directing the authority to enquire into the matter. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order dated 6.11.1996 passed by the learned single judge in W.P. No. 3590 of 1996 is set aside and the writ petition as per the prayer made in the amendment application is allowed. The order dated 16.2.1996 passed by the second respondent granting dealership/distributorship to the 4th respondent for Indane gas at Kulachel in Kanyakumari District, is quashed. We consider that this is a fit case in which heavy costs should be awarded. We, accordingly, award costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to be paid to the writ petitioner - appellant by the 4th respondent. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 17340 and 17341 of 1996 are dismissed."

Mr. K. Muraleedharan, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by them, submitted the following:

10.1. The respondent Corporation had adopted the transparency in the procedure for Dealership Selection as per the policy guidelines.

10.2. The Interview Committee had awarded the marks to the candidates purely on the basis of their performance and though the difference between the marks obtained by the petitioner and the fifth respondent is only 0.34 marks, it cannot be a ground to challenge the entire selection process.

10.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner made the representation, dated 06.10.2011, raising objections to the selection of the fifth respondent as the Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealer, however, on receipt of the same, the respondent Corporation referred the matter for investigation.

10.4. Pending enquiry, the authorities did not proceed with the procedures to issue the Letter of Intent to the fifth respondent and hence, the contention of the petitioner that the authorities had not taken action on the written objections of the petitioner, is unsustainable.

10.5. Considering the overall material factors, the respondent Corporation has taken a decision to issue the Letter of Intent to the fifth respondent on 05.04.2013.

10.6. The stand focussed by the petitioner, as if the fifth respondent fabricated some documents, is a farfetched one and at a distant point of time, the petitioner is not justified in making such a plea, after issuing the Letter of Intent to the fifth respondent on completion of the selection process.

10.7. The point urged by the petitioner regarding the false information has not been brought to the notice of the respondent Corporation and the same was not done before this Court at the time of filing the writ petition in W.P(MD) No. 12727 of 2011 and it is barred by time limit as per Clause 18 of the Selection Brochure.

10.8. As per the directions of this Court, the respondent Corporation has considering the objections raised by the petitioner by way of a complaint and after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to either side, the objections of the petitioner were rejected and hence, it cannot be found fault with.

10.9. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 prayed for the dismissal of both the writ petitions.

In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, relied on the following decisions:

(i) K. Vinod Kumar Vs. S. Palanisamy and Others, AIR 2003 SC 3171 : (2004) 1 CTLJ 436 : (2003) 8 JT 100 : (2003) 6 SCALE 753 : (2003) 10 SCC 681 : (2003) 2 UJ 1480 : (2004) AIRSCW 4260 : (2003) AIRSCW 4519 : (2004) 2 Supreme 589 : (2003) 6 Supreme 471 . Paragraph 11 reads as under:

"11. The law is settled that over proceedings and decisions taken in administrative matters, the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and does not extend to the merits of the decision taken. No infirmity is pointed out in the proceedings of the Selection Board which may have the effect of vitiating the selection process. The capability of the appellant herein to otherwise perform as an LPG distributor is not in dispute. The High Court was not, therefore, justified in interfering with the decision of the Selection Board and the decision of BPCL to issue the letter of allotment to the appellant herein."

(emphasis supplied.)

(ii) Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cavalet India Ltd. and Others, (2005) 2 BC 443 : (2005) 124 CompCas 797 : (2005) 4 CompLJ 513 : (2005) 3 JT 570 : (2005) 4 SCC 456 : (2005) 60 SCL 387 : (2005) 2 SCR 1183 . Paragraph 19 is reproduced hereunder:

"19. From the aforesaid, the legal principles that emerge are:

(i) The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit as an appellate authority over the acts and deeds of the Financial Corporation and seek to correct them. The doctrine of fairness does not convert the writ courts into appellate authorities over administrative authorities.

(ii) In a matter between the Corporation and its debtor, a writ court has no say except in two situations:

(a) there is a statutory violation on the part of the Corporation, or

(b) where the Corporation acts unfairly i.e. unreasonably.

(iii) In commercial matters, the courts should not risk their judgments for the judgments of the bodies to which that task is assigned.

(iv) Unless the action of the Financial Corporation is mala fide, even a wrong decision taken by it is not open to challenge. It is not for the courts or a third party to substitute its decision, however, more prudent, commercial or businesslike it may be, for the decision of the Financial Corporation. Hence, whatever the wisdom (or the lack of it) of the conduct of the Corporation, the same cannot be assailed for making the Corporation liable.

(v) In the matter of sale of public property, the dominant consideration is to secure the best price for the property to be sold and this could be achieved only when there is maximum public participation in the process of sale and everybody has an opportunity of making an offer."

(emphasis added.)

(iii) R. Kalaivani v. Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., reported in (2010) 1 MLJ 742. The relevant portion is extracted below:

"13. The scope of interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of selection of Distributorship of Indane Gas is considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision V. Chandran Vs. Oil Selection Board and Others, (1995) 2 MLJ 458 .

Admittedly, no mala fide is alleged against the respondents by the petitioner. The petitioner, having been treated like other candidates, who participated in the interview and the Selection Committee having awarded marks for the experience on the basis of the questions put to the candidates and the answers given by them, there is no arbitrariness as alleged by the petitioner in awarding marks to 46 candidates."

(iv) The Senior Area Manager and The General Manager, LPG Indane, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Natesan . The relevant portions are reproduced for ready reference as under:

"9. ... The appellants are not supposed to be running any investigating agency. The applicant has to place the credentials, if he is interested, and if the application is incomplete, in sufficient and not justified or documents are not produced in support thereof, the appellants cannot grant any marks on that score.

... A public body has to go as per the norms that they had advertised. They cannot digress from that when other people are waiting in the queue with all their papers and applications. Surely a public body cannot depart from what they have advertised."

(v) E. Sundaram v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Executive Director and others [W.A.(MD) No. 924 of 2014, decided on 24.09.2014], wherein it is held as under:

"11. In view of the submissions of the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 20.09.2012, made in W.P(MD) No. 11111 of 2011. The allegations made by the appellant, with regard to the income of the fourth respondent, had not been established by the appellant, with sufficient evidence. It is also a well settled position in law that this Court would not conduct a roving enquiry with regard to the details of the selection process. No error or illegality could be found with regard to the awarding of marks for the appellant, as well as the respondents. It is also noted that a Letter of Appointment, dated 28.03.2014, had been issued to the fourth respondent, by the first respondent Corporation and the Dealership/Distributorship granted to the fourth respondent had been commissioned.

In such circumstances, we are of the view that the present Writ Appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs."

(emphasis given.)

Mr. M. Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. S. Natesh Raja, learned Counsel for the fifth respondent, reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit and made the following submissions:

12.1. The fifth respondent was selected by the authorities as per the selection procedures and they have also conducted the enquiry as per the directions of this Court in W.P(MD) No. 12727 of 2011.

12.2. In effect, the objections of the petitioner were rightly rejected by the Executive Director on consideration of the materials placed before him.

12.3. The fifth respondent invested huge amounts in setting out a Petroleum Retail Outlet, on the basis of the Letter of Intent issued in her favour and if she is not allowed to run the same, she will be put to irreparable loss.

12.4. Since the petitioner was not succeeded in the selection process, the petitioner is trying to achieve the same by either way in order to prevent the fifth respondent from running the Petroleum Retail Outlet and thereby, made false allegations without any basis.

12.5. Insofar as W.P(MD) No. 5133 of 2013 is concerned, the respondent Corporation, on a proper enquiry, rightly rejected the objections raised by the petitioner and hence, it deserves to be dismissed.

12.6. Only after complying with the requisite procedures, the respondent Corporation issued the Letter of Intent to the fifth respondent and hence, the issue of fabrication, now, raised by the petitioner is an afterthought and the same is liable to be rejected.

12.7. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent prayed for the dismissal of both the writ petitions.

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and scrutinised the materials available on record.

This Court, while ordering notice to the respondents in W.P(MD) No. 10228 of 2013, has passed the following order:

"Prima facie it is made clear that wrong information has been given by the 5th respondent, as evident from the information furnished by the Village Administrative Officer, Bodinaickanur, dated 11.4.2013 and the information furnished by the President, Silamalai Panchayat, Theni District, dated 25.05.2013. As per clause 19.2, furnishing of the false information will lead to cancellation of allotment. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent provided false information and is trying to get dealership.

In view of that, there shall be an order of status quo as on date.

Call on 19.07.2013."

Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 4 filed their counter affidavit in W.P(MD) No. 10228 of 2013, on 25.04.2014.

A bare perusal of the typed set of papers would show that admittedly, the fifth respondent produced some affidavits as required by the respondent Corporation at the time of selection process for setting out a Petroleum Retail Outlet. According to the petitioner, the said affidavits were fabricated ones and they were made ready for the purpose of complying with the conditions imposed by the respondent Corporation. But, the information received under the Right to Information Act, is not so clear to support the contention raised by the petitioner with ample material evidence and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 4 in W.P(MD) No. 10228 of 2013, would demonstrate the same.

The above narration of facts and the submissions made on either side, would make it clear that after declaring the results, the petitioner made a representation dated 06.10.2011 to the respondent Corporation, raising her objections as to the selection of the fifth respondent, wherein, the petitioner had listed out many infirmities regarding the selection process.

Now, the main grievance put forth by the petitioner is that the fifth respondent had played fraud by furnishing false information to the respondent Corporation at the time of selection process. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the materials placed before this Court, I am of the considered view that in the impugned order dated 18.03.2013, the respondent Corporation has categorically found that the petitioner failed to raise such an issue relating to false information either through the complaint or before this Court in the earlier writ proceedings and having kept quiet for years together, the petitioner suddenly woke up and strongly raised voice against the documents furnished by the fifth respondent. No doubt, the respondent Corporation is the authority concerned to decide on the issue and proceed further in the matter and this Court, by order dated 13.12.2012, directed the respondent Corporation to look into the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and accordingly, the same has been done, wherein the complaint of the petitioner was rejected by way of a speaking order with reasons.

Meanwhile, the respondent Corporation has issued the Letter of Intent to the fifth respondent to commence the business and of course, it is an usual procedure for the respondent Corporation to proceed further in the matter.

It could be seen that in the impugned order dated 18.03.2013, the respondent Corporation was very clear in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and found that since the petitioner and the fifth respondent are relatives, they have been indulging in such litigations and therefore, rejected the objections of the petitioner with reasons.

No doubt, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not conduct a roving enquiry with regard to the details of the selection process, which, is purely within the domain of the authority concerned.

The delay on the part of the petitioner in bringing out the so-called fraud alleged to have been played by the fifth respondent to the respondent Corporation, is vital one and it cannot be brushed aside just like that. The petitioner, at no point of time, had explained the said huge delay and the said aspect weighed much in the mind of this Court.

At this juncture, it is relevant and useful to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in V. Chandran Vs. Oil Selection Board and Others, (1995) 2 MLJ 458 , wherein, it is observed as follows:

"The process of appreciating and weighing the various factors, materials and rival merits, is the function of the 1st respondent-Board, which is having the necessary expertise and experience to perform its duties properly. In our view, there cannot therefore be any re-appreciation or re-appraisal of relevant material factors, relative qualifications and evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates in a writ proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India."

It is also settled law that over proceedings and decisions taken in the administrative matters, the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and does not extend to the merits of the decision taken. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no infirmity has been pointed out in the selection process.

Here, the respondent Corporation has adhered to all the procedures and guidelines framed for the selection process and this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no error apparent or illegality on the face of record in the impugned order dated 18.03.2013 and consequently, the respondent Corporation was right in issuing the Letter of Intent to the fifth respondent in furtherance of the selection process.

For the foregoing reasons and observations, both the writ petitions fail and accordingly, W.P(MD) Nos. 5133 of 2013 and 10228 of 2013 are dismissed and consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.