AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.M. Sapre, J.
This is an intra Court appeal filed by writ petitioner of W.P. No. 1690 of 2007 u/s 2 of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya Khandpeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005 against an order dated 30-8-2007 passed by Single Judge in W.P. No. 1690 of 2007.
By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of appellant.
So, the question that arises for consideration in this writ is whether Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ?
The dispute involved in the writ and now carried in this appeal relates to appointment of a retail outlet dealer. According to writ petitioner (appellant), he should have been held eligible and in consequence selected for the appointment of retail outlet dealership in question. He also complains that his non selection rather rejection and in turn selection of respondent No. 3 for the said dealership is bad in law. It should be set aside.
The respondents No. 1 and 2 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation invited applications for appointment of retail outlet dealership amongst the candidates from SC category at village Bamnala in District - Khargone. In all 29 applicants applied. The appellant, respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 also applied. These applicants were called for interview. The writ petitioner (appellant) was given 71.76% total marks on the basis of his qualifications/experience etc., whereas respondent No. 3 obtained 80%, respondent No. 4 obtained 78.33% and respondent No. 5 - 75%. In this view, the respondent No. 3 was selected being the highest amongst the applicants.
In substance, the grievance of writ petitioner in the writ out of which this writ arises was to the manner in giving marking to respective applicants. According to him, when the maximum marks for "Experience " was indicated as ''4'' in the guideline, then how candidate was given 12 marks for their experience as against maximum marking of 4.
The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their return and explained that the selection committee consisted of 3 members and each member was entitled to give maximum 4 marks for "experience ". This is how the total marking so far as experience criteria was concerned, worked out to 12 for each candidate. It was pointed out that all candidates thus could secure maximum 12 marks so far as their experience, qualification was concerned. It was also pointed out that no candidate secured more than 12 marks for their experience. The respondent also denied all averments made in the writ. The other respondents supported the stand of respondents No. 1 and 2.
By impugned order, the learned Single Judge finding no substance in the writ, dismissed the same. It is against this dismissal; the writ petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this intra Court appeal.
Heard Shri A. K. Sethi, learned senior counsel with Shri R. Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S. Kochatta and Shri S. Mukati, Learned Counsels for the respondents.
Learned Counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) reiterated the same submissions which were pressed in service before Single Judge and contended that view taken by Single Judge needs setting aside.
In reply, Learned Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order.
Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal. In our opinion, the view taken by Single Judge is correct, calling no interference.
The basic grievance of the appellant (writ petitioner) was to marking. He complained that when as per instructions the maximum marks for experience was ''4'' then how the committee could give ''12'' marks to a candidate. This fact was properly explained by respondents and we find substance in it. Since, the selection committee consisted of 3 members and hence, every member was entitled to give maximum ''4'' marks so far as "experience" of candidate was concerned.
In this way, a candidate could get maximum 12 marks for his experience.
It is not the case of appellant that any candidate was awarded more than 12 marks. Had it been so, then it was a case of committing breach of instructions.
In the light of foregoing discussion, this submission has no substance. It is accordingly, rejected.
We have seen the marking chart submitted by respondents No. 1 and 2. In our view, it does not show any arbitrariness in marking.
It is a settled principle of law that the Courts in such matter do not act as an appellate Court nor do they perform the job of an expert. The extent of judicial interference in such matter is to find out as to whether respondents committed any act of arbitrariness or favour in its decision making. In this case, we have not been able to notice it, nor any challenge was laid on the plea of mala fides or arbitrariness except the one mentioned supra. It was repelled.
In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. As a consequence, all interim orders passed in appeal are recalled.