The petitioner challenges the communication dated 02.03.2012 in and by which two marks awarded to her for experience was deducted and the total marks obtained by her was revised from 94.50 to 92.50. This has resulted in her losing the first place in the merit panel for appointment as a dealer for L.P.G distribution at Sivagangai.
2.In the original mark list, the petitioner was awarded two marks for experience on the basis that she has produced a experience certificate from M/s.Kaleeshwari Lubricants. It is now complained by the Oil Corporation that the petitioner had actually worked as a Teacher during the relevant period with St.Michaels Engineering & Technology College and Pannai Engineering College. Contending that the petitioner suppressed those facts and which has resulted in award two marks for experience and thus, the Oil Corporation has reduced marks obtained by the petitioner from 94.50 to 92.50. As a result, the petitioner was placed in the third position which resulted her being disentitled to get appointment as a dealer.
3.Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would confine his submission only with regard to the breach of principles of natural justice by the respondents. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the experience had not taken into account based on the certificates of the petitioner but it was taken into account based on the certificate allegedly issued by St.Michels Engineering & Technology College at Kalayarkovil and Pannai Engineering College at Sivagangai which were obtained behind her back and she was not put on notice about the said certificates.
4.Though, counter affidavit has been filed by the Oil Corporation contending inter alia that the petitioner actually suppressed the fact regarding her experience and that the reduction of marks was done only based on the field investigation done by the Corporation, it is not stated or shown that the certificates obtained at the time of field investigation were put to the petitioner and she was given an opportunity to meet the said allegations.
5.Once the petitioner has been awarded marks that has been placed first in the rank list, if her position is to be altered, it is for the respondent Oil Corporation to put the petitioner on notice and decide the question after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. In the absence of such opportunity having been given, I do not think that the impugned order would be sustained.
6.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the Oil Corporation is empowered to decide on the above questions in the process of selection. The power of the Oil Corporation to decide on the experience of the petitioner as well as the conduct of the petitioner cannot be disputed.
7.Be that as it may, the Oil Corporation without giving notice to the petitioner has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has given a false declaration and produced a false certificate which is prejudicial to her. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside reserving liberty to the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner to meet the allegations regarding the suppression of fact or regarding lack of experience as claimed by the respondents 1 and 2. It is also open to the respondents 1 and 2 to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that the quashing of the impugned order is only on the basis of breach of principles of natural justice and it shall not be taken as acceptance of the case of the petitioner on the merits of the matter.
8.With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012 is closed.
.