Judgment:
Writ Petition No.2027/2012 13.3.2013 Shri A.S.Jha, learned Senior counsel with Shri D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.K.Salunke, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri K.S.Bhagel, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
Respondent no.3 Senior Regional Manager conducted interviews for selection of dealer for new retail outlet to be set up at Patpara, District Sidhi.
Thereafter, in the merit list prepared name of respondent no.4 was shown in fiRs.position with 88.32 marks whereas the name of petitioner was shown in second position with 86.13 marks.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the validity of the merit list prepared by respondent no.3.
During the pendency of petition he also made a complaint on the same grounds to respondent no.2 Grievance Redressal Committee which comprises of three senior officers of respondent no.1.
The fiRs.ground in the complaint of petitioner was that although two sites were offered by him whereas only one site was considered during the selection process.
To this, the finding of respondent no.2 Committee is as under : “The complainant had offered sites located at KhaSr.No.1456/1457/1458 and KhaSr.No.1288/1289.
During the site inspection, the fiRs.site was awarded 81.41 marks and the second site was awarded 91.61 marks.
Further, it was found that the fiRs.site (1456/1457/1458) was owned by the complainant which entitles him award of 35 marks giving him an average weighted marks of 28.49 marks whereas the second site is owned by the father and since the complainant is married, it would be treated as a firm offer and he will be entitled for 25 marks which will result into weighted average marks of 22.90.
Since the fiRs.land gives more marks, the same was considered in the selection process which is in line with the guidelines .”
The second ground of complaint was that site offered by respondent no.3 has a 33 KV electrical line, which is, therefore, not suitable.
To this, the finding of respondent no.2 Committee is as follows: “During the investigation, it was found that the 33KV electrical line is not passing over the site offered but it has ROW (right of way for public).Hence, the existence of the site is in line with the guidelines.”
The last ground of complaint was that wrong marks were awarded for income of respondent no.4.
To this ground the finding of respondent no.2 Committee reads as under : “During the investigation, it was found that the fiRs.empanelled candidate had submitted ITR for the assessment year 2011-12 for Rs.2,00,949/- pertaining to himself.
The investment required for the location is Rs.15 lacs, Rs.2.40 lacs were required in the form of annual income to get full 4 marks.
Since the income is Rs.2,00,949/- he was awarded 3.35 marks which is in line with the guidelines.”
On these findings the complaint of petitioner has been dismissed by respondent no.2 Committee vide order dated 6.9.2012, Annexure P10.
The petitioner, therefore, by amending the petition has also challenged the order dated 6.9.2012, Annexure P10.
But the learned senior counsel for petitioner could not dislodge the findings arrived at by respondent no.2 committee.
I also find the findings well founded and unassailable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Therefore, no ground for interference with the decision of respondent no.3 in giving 88.32 marks to respondent no.4 is made out.
Respondent no.3 has also issued the Letter of Intent dated 10.1.2013 in favour of respondent no.4 for the dealership of proposed retail outlet.
The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
JUDGE ss