Judgment · High Court
Judgment
This writ petition is instituted essentially challenging the selection of the 4th respondent for award of a retail outlet for sale of petroleum and petroleum products by the 1st respondent – Indian Oil Corporation Limited (henceforth referred to as ‘IOCL’). Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the 1st respondent IOCL on 08-10-2009, both the petitioners herein as well as the 4th respondent have applied in their individual capacities. After initial scrutiny of their applications, the candidates have been subjected to an evaluation process of interviewing them on 17-03-2010. The case of the petitioners is that while they were awarded 88.05 marks, the 4th respondent has been awarded 93.25 marks, i.e., more than 5 marks. Though the 4th respondent does not appear to be eligible to be awarded so many marks, the oil corporation has awarded her high marks. When the petitioners lodged their grievance with the Grievance Redressal Committee of the IOCL, the entire matter has been got re-examined and marks have been awarded afresh. The writ petitioners’ marks were upgraded to 91.53, even then, it fell short of nearly 1.75 marks to that of the 4th respondent. Therefore, the selection of the 4th respondent by the 1st respondent IOCL for awarding her retail outlet at Bodhan Town of Nizamabad District, cannot be faulted.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri J. Prabhakar makes an attempt to demonstrate as to how marks have been inflated in the case of the 4th respondent, but however, I refrain myself from getting into that arena, inasmuch as the parameters for awarding marks have been crystal clearly indicated by the IOCL. When once they have gone by the said assessment, in the absence of any material to demonstrate that the judgment of the assessment officers is inaccurate in that respect, it will not be appropriate for this Court to substitute its opinion for that of the officers of the respondent corporation, who have been entrusted with the task of selecting one of the applicants. I, therefore, do not find any justification in the claim the petitioners and hence, the writ petition dismissed. No costs. The interim order granted by this Court on 24-11-2010 shall stand discharged. ------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohan Rao, J 11-08-2011
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.