Santosh Kumar Rakesh V. The Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Dinesh Paswan

CWJC/12525/2010

AI Insights

The case revolves around the petitioner's challenge to the Oil Company's decision regarding the allocation of marks for educational qualifications in the selection process for an LPG distributorship. The petitioner argued that his Post Graduation in Labour and Social Welfare should be considered equivalent to an MBA, deserving of maximum marks in the professional qualification category. The Oil Company and the private respondent contested this, emphasizing the distinct nature of the qualifications and the specific criteria set out in the selection brochure. The court examined the qualifications, the selection criteria, and relevant precedents, ultimately deciding that the petitioner's qualifications did not meet the professional standard required for maximum marks.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803434 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Dev Kumar Dubey Vs. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman & Ors., Satyendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Ors.
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAGHIB AHSAN; K D CHATTERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY SINGH
• Keywords: Educational qualification; LPG Distributorship; Professional Qualification; Equivalence of Degrees

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12525 of 2010 ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Rakesh S/O Sri Jai Mangal Paswan R/O House No.6b/26, Tilak Marg, North Sri Krishnapuri, Boring Road, P.S.Sri Krishnapuri, Distt- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas New Delhi 2. The General Manager, L.P.G., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna 3. The Deputy General Manager, L.P.G., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna 4. The Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Eastern Zone, Exhibition Road, Patna 5. Dinesh Paswan, S/o Sri Sitaram Paswan, R/o Mohalla Katghar, P.O. Munger, Dist. Munger, Pin Code 811201. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manoranjan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghib Ahsan(Asst.SG) For the Pvt. Resp. : Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT (Date- 16.09.2014) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. ------ for direction, directing the Respondents to award the L.P.G. Distributorship of Indian Oil Corporation Limited of Scheduled Caste Category at Shahkund in Bhagalpur District in favour of the petitioner.” Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 2 petitioner, has submitted that when the respondent Oil Company had given the petitioner only 13 marks out of 15 marks under the head of Professional Qualification, it had done great injustice to him because had the petitioner had been given 15 marks which was the maximum marks for the Professional Qualification he could have easily made at serial no.1 of the panel for selection for allotment of LPG distribution. He in this regard has gone to explain that the provisions incorporated in brochure in this regard for award of point for professional qualification is quite specific that each and every professional qualification has to be accepted and awarded 15 points, there can be no varying standard of evaluation by the Selection Committee of the Oil Company. 3. In this regard, Mr. Singh is of the view that the qualification of the petitioner of having a Post Graduation Degree from Patna University in the subject of Labour and Social Welfare would be as good as a qualification of a Master in Business Administration (MBA). Mr. Singh in order to support his submission has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dev Kumar Dubey Vs. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman & Ors. reported in 2010(4)PLJR 1062. 4. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel for the Oil Company, on the other hand, has submitted that there is a Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 3 fallacy in the submission of Mr. Singh, inasmuch as, his expectation that each and every professional qualification as mentioned in the brochure will lead to automatic award of 15 points is wholly misplaced. He has also submitted that in any event the case of the petitioner has been well circumscribed within four corners by the pleadings wherein the petitioner himself claims equivalence of the degree of Post Graduate in the subject of Labour and Social Welfare with the MBA. He has in this regard also placed his reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satyendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Ors. reported in 2001(1)PLJR 104 wherein according to him it has been held that this Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would be wholly ill equipped to declare equivalence of qualification and such job has to be in fact left to the academic bodies/experts. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondent no.5 has more or less adopted the aforesaid submission of Mr. Chatterjee with only in addition that the respondent no.5 was found the best candidate on the basis of the evaluation of marks and that cannot be disturbed by a mere ipsi dixit of the petitioner. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the first and foremost question would be the scope of evaluation which was to be done by the Oil Company in course of selection of Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 4 dealers for allotment of LPG dealership. Let it be noted that in the brochure under Clause 14.1 each and every criteria has been explained and to that extent, it would be relevant to reproduce the same, which reads as follows:- “14.1 Allocation of marks on various parameters based on documents will be carried out as per the information given in the application. Criteria Sub Head Description Max Marks Evaluation *Capability to provide Infrastructure and facilities (as on the date of application Suitable land for LPG storage godown / godown Owns@- Having clear title/Registered Sales Deed of the suitable land/godown 25 Based on the information & statement given in the application. OR Firm Offer @@- Having agreement to purchase/lease suitable land/ godown 18 Based on the information & statement given in the application. OR Can arrange 10 Based on the information & statement given in the application. Suitable land/ shop for showroom Owns @- Having clear title/ Registered Sales Deed of the suitable land/ shop for showroom 10 Based on the information & statement given in the application. Or Firm offer @@- Having agreement to purchase suitable land/ shop for showroom 7 Based on the information & statement given in the application. Or Can arrange 5 Based on the information & statement given in the application. Sub total maximum marks 35 *Capability to provide finance Financially sound Funds (a) Amount in saving accounts in Bank. (as on date of application) (b) Free and unencumbered fixed deposits in scheduled banks or any other documents/resour 18 Based on the information given in the application (FDs/NSCs/Shares/an y other investment bonds in the name of self or family members as defined above under relationship clause) Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 5 ce which can be readily converted to liquid cash to cover working capital/ infrastructure requirements (as on date of advertisement) Award 0.1 marks on every unit of Rs. 10,000/- or more in multiples of Rs. 10,000/- and amounts less than complete unit of Rs. 10,000/- will not be considered for award of marks. Maximum marks-18 Rs. 18,00,000 & above 18.0 Ability to arrange loan (c) Bankers/ Financial institution certificate for credit worthiness and willingness to extend loan, if required. (as on date of application) 7 Based on the letter from Bank/ Financial Institution sent with the application. 7 marks in case no Credit worthiness certificate from bankers/ financial institutions but Funds are more than 20 lakhs as mentioned at (a) & (b) above. Otherwise marks to be awarded on the basis of certificate from bankers/ financial institutions as under:- Range of Loan Rs. Marks to be award ed >=2 lac to <4 lac 1 >=4 lac to <6 lac 2 >=6 lac to <7 lac 3 >=7 lac to <8 lac 4 >=8 lac to <9 lac 5 >=9 lac to <10 lac 6 >=10 lac 7 Assets (c)Fixed and other assets (as on date of advertisement) 5 Based on information or application. 5 marks in case no immovable and moveable property but funds are more than 20 lakhs as mentioned at (a) above. Otherwise marks to be awarded as under: Range of assets value Marks to be award ed >=3 lac <6 lac 1 Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 6 >=6 lac <9 lac 2 >=9 lac <12 lac 3 >=12 lac <15 lac 4 >=15 lac 5 Income (d) Income from all sources such as salary, property, business, agricultural, interest, dividend, rent earnings, royalty etc per annum 5 Based on information of application income as per Income Tax Return of the last financial year and or affidavit on income Maximum Marks 5. Award 0.1 marks on every unit of Rs. 10,000 or more in multiples of Rs. 10,000/- and amounts less than complete unit of Rs. 10,000/- will not be considered for award of marks. Sub total maximum marks 35 ** EDUCATION- AL QUALIFICATI ON (as on date of application) Matriculate/SSC/ Xth Pass XIIth Pass Graduate Post graduate or higher qualification 7 8 10 12 Based on the information & documents given in the application Additional qualification Any Diploma/ Degree Basic qualification plust 1 mark for additional qualification any diploma/degree Professional Technical/Law /Medical/Manage ment Graduate/Chartere d/Cost Accountant or higher qualification- BE, B.Tech, MBA, CA or equivalent minimum 4 years post 12th 15 Sub Total Maximum marks 15 **AGE Marks will be awarded on the following basis >=21<26 >=26<46 >=46<56 >=56<=65 >65 2 4 2 1 0 Based on the information & documents given in the application.” (underlining fro emphasis) Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 7 7. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid clause of evaluating the candidates, two things become very clear. Firstly, that each of the criteria which has been divided under the sub-head with specific description on the basis of which the maximum marks has been allocated. Secondly the fixing of maximum marks does not mean that every candidate claiming to fulfil the criteria has to be given maximum marks. 8. As with regard to the issue in hand confining to educational qualification has to be understood in the context where it was divided under the two heads, namely, Basic Qualification and Professional Qualification. Under the head Basic Qualification, a candidate having passed the Matriculation Examination irrespective of any division has to be given 7 points. Similarly, if he has passed twelve examination, he has to be given 10 points. Again if he has passed the Graduation, he has to be given 10 points and if he has passed the Post Graduation or having higher qualification, he has to be given 12 points. This becomes more clear from reading of the basic qualification. It has to be also noted that even under the head of basic qualification, the additional qualification of any diploma or degree leads to award of one mark for additional qualification. 9. In this background when the sub-head of Professional Educational Qualification is taken into consideration Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 8 it is found from the description therein is that such professional qualification must be in the field of technical, law, medical, management and the qualification may be either by way of graduation or post graduation with a minimum requirement of four years course after passing class 12 examination. It is here that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be tested in the light of pleadings of the petitioner in paragraph no.9 of the writ petition which, for the sake of clarity and convenience, is quoted herein below:- “9. That, it is pertinent to mention here that other person, who has been selected, got 25.66 marks whereas the petitioner got only 24.83 marks. The petitioner got 13 marks in educational qualification i.e. L.S.W. which is equivalent to M.B.A. degree instead of 15 marks. That is why petitioner could not come in the final selection list. If petitioner would got 15 marks as per the entitlement then petitioner would get 26.83 marks which is higher than the selected candidate, who got only 25.66 marks. In this regard, the petitioner filed a representation before Deputy General Manager as well as Senior Area Manager, L.P.G. of India Oil Corporation on 1st July, 2009 and same has been received on the same date i.e. 1st July, 2009.” 10. The petitioner thus was/is actually aiming to get the same point which was given to a professional degree holder and, in this regard, his case is that the degree of Post Graduation obtained by the petitioner in the subject of Labour and Social Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 9 Welfare is equivalent to a degree of Master of Business Administration and, therefore, he ought to have been given 15 marks in place of 13 marks. Let it be noted that the petitioner was given 13 marks under the heading Basic Qualification where any Post Graduate is entitled to 12 marks and only because he had also a qualification by way of degree, he was given one marks extra making it total to 13 but all this was given to the petitioner under the head of Basic Qualification. The petitioner, however, is finding that the marks given for his Post Graduation qualification under the Basic Qualification ought to have been treated as a professional degree on account of his having Post Graduation Degree in the subject of Labour and Social Welfare. 11. This however cannot be allowed by the writ court even when the petitioner has sought to claim equivalence on the basis of degree of M.A. in Social Welfare to a degree of MBA on the basis of a certificate dated 24.3.2007 given by the Head of the Department of Patna University, which reads as follows:- “DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL MANAGEMENT & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DARBHANGTA HOUSE, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA- 800 005 ReF. 264/PMIR/07 Date 24/03/07 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Certified that Mr. Santosh Kumar Rakesh, S/o Sri Jaimangal Paswan passed the Post-Graduate Examination in Labour and Social Welfare of Patna University of 2000- 2002 Session and was placed in the Second Class. Certified further that the nomenclature of the Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 10 Department has changed from Labour and Social Welfare to Personnel Management & Industrial Relations with effect from 01.07.2006. Now the degree awarded is that of Personnel Management & Industrial Relations, Patna University and this degree is considered equivalent to the degree of MBA with specialization in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations or Human Resource Management and that this degree is recognized as such throughout the country. Sd./- 24/03/2007 Head of the Department Head P.G. Deptt. Of Peresonnel Management & Industrial Relations Patna University Darbhanga House, Patna- 800 005” 12. It the considered opinion of this Court, it was this very issue which was precisely gone into by this Court in the case of Satyendra Singh (supra) wherein, after discussing relevant facts with regard to two degrees of Fisheries Science, this Court had held as follows:- “11. In view of the submissions advanced at the bar, two questions arise for consideration in this appeal. Firstly, as to the scope or power of judicial review in the matter of prescribing requisite qualification by the competent authority for a particular post and secondly as to whether the qualification possessed by respondent No.1, i.e. M.Sc. (FM) from CIFE, Bombay is to be treated as equivalent to the diploma in Fisheries Science, thus, making respondent No.1 eligible for the said post by treating him as a candidate possessing the degree of B.Sc. (Zoology) with M.Sc. (FM) from CIEF Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 11 equivalent to diploma in Fisheries Science. 12. Prescribing qualification for a particular post by the competent authority is a policy decision. The Government frames a policy after taking into consideration the number of facts and circumstances, expert opinion and other relevant considerations. The power of judicial review in such matters is limited. The Court can interfere only when the authorities have acted arbitrarily or in violation of the statutory or constitutional provisions. The Court does not sit as an appellate forum in disguise over the policy matter. It has no power to re-frame her policy matter and in case the policy matter is found suffering from any legal infirmities as indicated above, then the same is to be struck down and the matter is sent to the authority to consider the policy matter in accordance with the law laid down. If the rules have been framed prescribing the qualification for a particular post, the Court has no power to re- frame the rules or supplement the rule by adding additional qualification for the simple reason that that is a function of the appointing authority and in the case of any legal lacuna the Court can only direct the appointing authority to consider the matter on the basis of the expert opinion and other relevant consideration. The Court cannot on the basis of the documents appended with the affidavit determine the equivalence or addition of qualification in the recruitment rules. 13. In the case of J. Rangaswamy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others [(1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases 288], the question for consideration was for appointment to the post of Professor in Radiological Physics. The appellant before the Supreme Court, possessed the diploma in Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 12 Radiological Physics (as applied in Medicine) from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and claimed that his qualification was better qualification which was prescribed as a qualification for the said post by the appointing authority. Dealing with the said matter, the Apex Court held that it is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts or to assess the comparative merits of such a doctorate and the BARC diploma held by the petitioner and decide or direct as to what should be the qualifications to be prescribed for the post in question. It is for the concerned authority to consider and take a final decision in the matter and on that basis the claim of the petitioner was negatived by the Apex Court on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification. 14. In the case of Government of Orissa and another vs. Hanichal Roy and others [(1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 626], the recruitment rules vested power in the State Government to relax the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. The Orissa Administrative Tribunal instead of directing the State Government to consider the matter of relaxation, itself relax (sic-ed?) the provisions of law. The Apex Court dealing with the said matter held that the Tribunal cannot decide the question of relaxation of provisions of law. According to the rule, the State Government was competent authority to consider the relaxation as provided in the rules and accordingly, set aside the order and directed the State Government to consider the question of relaxation. 15. Thus the law is settled that when the recruitment rules provide for a requisite qualification and the question arises as to whether any other Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 13 qualification is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the recruitment rules or not, then that question has to be decided by the competent authority and the Court cannot amend the rule or reframe it and the Court can only direct the concerned authority to re-examinee the matter specially in a technical matter, like this, after obtaining the expert’s opinion. The Court cannot take a final decision on the basis of affidavit and the opinion of the expert and decide such matter. The power of judicial review in such a matter is very limited and in case if the State Government decides the matter and the same is found to be arbitrary, malafide, then the Court will consider the same keeping in view the scope of judicial review in such matter.” 13. This Court, therefore, will have no difficulty in rejecting the submission of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the qualification of MBA is equivalent to qualification of MA in Social Welfare. For that purpose, no authority would be required because the subject of Labour and Social Welfare has only one of branches of social science which is wholly different from specialization in the course of MBA which has otherwise many other branches like Finance, Accounts, Human Relation etc. Therefore, it will be a meaningless exercise for this Court to go into the aspect as to whether the Post Graduation Degree of Labour and Social Welfare will be equivalent to the degree of Master in Business Administration (MBA). The change of nomenclature of the institute as has been Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 14 certified by the Head of the Department of Patna University in no view of the matter can change the substance as with regard to the two courses of MA in Labour and Social Welfare vis-à-vis MBA. 14. Reverting to the other submissions of Mr. Singh where he wants to draw support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Dev Kumar Dubey (supra), it has to be necessarily taken into consideration that what was decided in that case was validity of a Post Graduation Degree in the Management from the Institute of Rural Management, Anand. It was that educational qualification which was subjected to scrutiny wherein it was held that the Diploma from institute of Management will also include Degree/Diploma of IRMA and no discrimination could be made between the two type of Degree and Diploma, one from the Indian Institute of Management and other from the IRMA. 15. Thus, whatever was held in the case of Dev Kumar Dubey (supra) will have no application to the facts of the present case where the respondents have not considered the qualification of MA from Labour and Social Welfare as a professional qualification and have taken it to be a Basic Qualification of Post Graduation with an additional one marks for the degree held by the petitioner. 16. Judged in this background, this Court would not find any error in the Evaluation Board of the authorities of Oil Patna High Court CWJC No.12525 of 2010 (11) dt.16-09-2014 15 Company who had rightly not allowed the petitioner the maximum marks of 15 which was to be given only to the persons having professional qualification. 17. Thus, the petitioner, having admittedly secured lesser marks than the respondent no.5, cannot claim anything better than what he has already got in his ranking as second to Respondent no. 5 a person who had higher marks and was placed at no.1. 18. That being so, this application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Patna High Court Dated the 16th Sept. 2014 A.F.R./Rishi/- U "