Page 1

REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     7599      OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13499 of 2011)

Sajeesh Babu K.                     .... Appellant (s)

Versus

N.K. Santhosh & Ors.                       .... Respondent(s)

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T      

P.     Sathasivam,     J.   

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order  

dated 06.04.2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala at  

Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 464 of 2011 whereby the  

Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by  

the appellant herein.

1

Page 2

3)    Brief Facts:

a) On 27.12.2007, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a  

Public Sector Oil Company engaged in refining of crude oil and  

marketing of various petroleum products (in short “the  

Corporation”)-Respondent No. 2 herein invited applications for  

grant of LPG distributorship for Edavanna, Malappuram  

District, Kerala, a distributorship reserved for Scheduled  

Caste applicants.  In total, 41 persons including the appellant  

and respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein applied for the grant of  

licence for the same.   

b) The Corporation, after conducting interviews and  

evaluating the merits and demerits of the candidates as per  

the procedure prescribed under the guidelines for the selection  

of Bharatgas Distributors, selected the appellant herein for  

grant of licence of LPG distributorship and issued him a Letter  

of Intent dated 25.06.2009.

c) Challenging the genuineness of the experience  

certificates produced by the appellant herein, Shri N.K.  

Santhosh-Respondent No.1 herein filed a petition being W.P.

(C) No. 7622 of 2010 before the High Court of Kerala.  Learned  

2

Page 3

single Judge of the High Court, by judgment dated  

16.03.2011, allowed the petition and quashed the  

distributorship granted to the appellant herein.   

d) Against the said judgment, the appellant herein filed a  

Writ Appeal being No. 464 of 2011 before the High Court.  The  

Division Bench of the High Court, by impugned judgment  

dated 06.04.2011, dismissed the said appeal.    

e) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed  

this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

4) Heard Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the  

appellant and Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, learned counsel for  

respondent No.1 and Mr. Vikram Ganguly, learned counsel for  

respondent No.2-Corporation.  None appeared for respondent  

No.3.

5) It is the claim of the appellant that the Corporation, after  

conducting interviews and evaluating the merits and demerits  

of the candidates as per the procedure prescribed under the  

guidelines for selection of Bharatgas Distributors, selected him  

for grant of licence of LPG distributorship for Edavanna,  

Malappuram District, Kerala.  It is also pointed out that as per  

3

Page 4

the tabulation sheet, the appellant had scored highest marks  

than the other candidates with reference to qualification,  

experience, age, business ability and personality and was  

placed in the first position whereas Respondent No.3 herein  

was placed in the second and respondent No.1 herein was  

placed in the third position.   

6) Respondent No.1 herein, who is working in the Kerala  

State Electricity Board as Assistant Engineer, challenged the  

selection of the appellant herein before the High Court of  

Kerala by filing a petition being W.P.(C) No. 7622 of 2010  

alleging the genuineness of the experience certificates (Exh.  

Nos. P2 and P3) produced by him and awarding of more marks  

on the basis of the same. He further claimed that the Selection  

Committee ought to have preferred his application for LPG  

distributorship.  Learned single Judge allowed the said writ  

petition holding that the experience certificates submitted by  

the appellant appear to be totally unacceptable as the  

appellant while studying M.Tech could not have been possible  

to work as part-time Marketing Manager and an Insurance  

Consultant.  On this ground, the learned single Judge  

4

Page 5

quashed the grant of licence of LPG distributorship to the  

appellant and directed the Corporation to re-assess his marks  

afresh excluding the marks for the experience certificates.  The  

very same decision was affirmed by the Division Bench of the  

High Court.

7) In order to ascertain the correctness of the decision of the  

Selection Committee, the order of the learned single Judge  

setting aside the same and remitting it for fresh consideration  

as affirmed by the Division Bench, it is desirable to refer the  

relevant guidelines for selection of Bharatgas Distributors.  It  

is pointed out by the Corporation, in their counter affidavit  

,before the High Court as well as in this Court that as per  

Clause 14 of the guidelines, the LPG distributor will be  

selected on the basis of evaluation of all eligible applicants on  

the following parameters:

a) Capability to provide infrastructure – 35 marks b) Capability to provide finance – 35 marks c) Educational qualifications – 15 marks d) Age – 4 marks e) Experience – 4 marks f) Business ability/acumen – 5 marks g) Personality – 2     marks            Total   100 marks

It is also stated in their counter affidavit that the selection of  

the appellant was in accordance with the guidelines and  

5

Page 6

norms governing the matter and there is no extraneous  

consideration in selecting him as an empanelled candidate.  It  

is further explained that the evaluation on the parameters ‘a’  

to ‘d’ will be done on the basis of the information given in the  

application and the evaluation on parameters ‘e’  to ‘g’  will be  

done on the basis of the interview.

8) As per the guidelines, the maximum marks for  

experience in direct sale/home delivered products (including  

LPG distributorship), other petroleum products and for any  

other trade are 4, 3 and 2 respectively.  It has been further  

elaborated in the guidelines that marks for the parameter  

‘Experience’  are awarded based on the information furnished  

in the application for experience of running or working in an  

establishment for minimum one year and that too on the  

quality rather than amount of experience.  It is the case of the  

Corporation that the quality of experience will be judged based  

on the response to the questions relating to experience in  

direct sale, home delivered products, trade of petroleum  

products, hospitality/service industry etc. by the candidates in  

the interview.  In the counter affidavit, it is also specifically  

6

Page 7

stated that the appellant has been awarded with 4 marks for  

the parameter ‘Experience’  by the Selection Committee  

comprising of 3 senior officials of the Corporation who are well  

qualified and experienced in assessing the required experience  

for an LPG distributor.  It is further explained that 4 marks  

were awarded to the appellant strictly in accordance with the  

guidelines for the distributorship of LPG and based on the  

response to the questions relating to the above in the  

interview.   

9) Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the  

decision by the learned single Judge with reference to Exh.  

Nos. P2 and P3 and the ultimate selection by the Committee.  

The learned single Judge, in paragraph 4 of his judgment,  

arrived at the following conclusion:

“…………..First of all, in Exts. P2 and P3 there is no mention  that the second respondent was working part-time.  Secondly, ordinarily, it would be very difficult for a M.Tech  student to work part-time as a Marketing Manager of a gas  distributor and an Insurance consultant.  Thirdly, as per  Ext.P2 certificate the second respondent was working as  Marketing Manager in Malappuram from December 2005 to  March 2007.  Ext. P3 certificate certifies that the second  respondent worked as an Insurance consultant with Bajaj  Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.  since August 2006.  The period of Exts. P2 and P3 overlaps.  Respondents 1 and  2 have not been able to give a satisfactory explanation for  the same.  Lastly, and more importantly as proved by Ext.  

7

Page 8

P4, the second respondent was a M.Tech student of CUSAT  which is at Ernakulam.  The fairly tale that a student  studying for M.Tech in Cochin was working part-time as  Marketing Manager and Insurance Consultant at  Malappuram is totally unbelievable…………….”

When this conclusion was challenged by the appellant herein  

before a Division Bench of the High Court, the Division Bench  

without much discussion merely affirmed the same.  In view of  

the decision by the learned single Judge and the Division  

Bench, it is worthwhile to refer the contents of Exh. Nos. P2  

and P3 and to see whether it would be possible for the  

appellant to have this experience while studying M.Tech., the  

assessment and the decision of the Selection Committee.

10) We have already quoted Clause 14 which deals with  

norms for evaluating the candidates.  Before proceeding  

further, it is relevant to note that as per the guidelines, in case  

of LPG distributorship reserved for SC category, there will be  

no evaluation on land and financial capabilities as mentioned  

in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause 14.  It is not in dispute  

that the present distributorship has been reserved for  

Scheduled Caste applicants.  In that event, the Selection  

Committee has to concentrate other clauses, namely, clauses  

8

Page 9

(c) to (g) and select a suitable candidate based on their  

assessment.   

11) The Selection Committee relied on the Experience  

Certificate issued by M/s Sree Agencies, ELF Gas Distributor,  

Malappuram, Kerala, which reads as under:

“TO     WHOMSOEVER     IT     MAY     CONCERN   

This is to certify that Mr. Sajeesh Babu, Kavalappara,  S/o Balan residing at Kavalapara house, Padinhattumuri  P.O. Malappuram Dist. Was worked in this office as  marketing Manager from December 2005 to March 2007.  He  performed very well and his conduct was also good.

Place : Malappuram           Stamp Yours faithfully Date : 05.04.2007    sd/-

 Manager”

12) The other certificate relied on by the Selection Committee  

is the Experience Certificate issued by Bajaj Allianz Life  

Insurance Company Limited which reads as under:

“TO     WHOMSOEVER     IT     MAY     CONCERN   

This is to certify that Mr. Sajeesh Babu, Kavalappara,  S/o Balan K. residing at Kavalappra (House),  Padinhattumuri (Post), Malappuram (Dist.) is being worked  with us since August 2006 as an Insurance Consultant at  our branch office Malappuram.  His conduct during this  period has been good.

OFFICAL SEAL

 Sd/-                                    Senior  Branch Manager

     Bajaj Allianz        Up Hill, Malappuram”

9

Page 10

13) The Degree Certificate issued by Cochin University of  

Science and Technology, Faculty of Technology dated  

23.12.2008 shows that the appellant has been awarded the  

degree of Master of Technology in Software Engineering and  

the appellant qualified with First class distinction at the  

examination held in June, 2008.

14) The experience certificates issued by M/s Sree Agencies  

and M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. were  

evaluated by the Selection Committee.  It has already been  

stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation that the  

quality of experience will be judged on the basis of the  

response to the questions related to experience in direct sale,  

home delivered products, hospitality/service industry etc. by  

the candidates in the interview.  It has also been informed to  

this Court that the appellant has been awarded 4 marks for  

experience by the Selection Committee consisting of 3 senior  

officials of the Company who are well qualified and  

experienced in assessing the required experience for LPG  

distributorship.  It is further asserted that after the interview,  

field verification had been done by the Corporation to verify  

10

Page 11

the genuineness and veracity of the documents submitted by  

the candidate as contemplated in clause 16 of the guidelines.  

It is further stated that the field verification had been  

conducted by a team comprising of 2 officers of the  

Corporation and that the team had met the Proprietor as well  

as Manager of M/s Sree Agencies, who confirmed that Mr.  

Sajeesh Babu K. (appellant herein) worked with them on a  

part-time basis.  It is the stand of the Corporation that since  

the persons who have issued the experience certificate  

admitted its issuance, the Corporation treats the same as  

genuine.  They also reiterated and verified that the certificates  

of experience have no relevance in granting marks under the  

parameter ‘experience’  as the same has been awarded on the  

basis of the response to the questions related to experience in  

the relevant field. The marks awarded by the Selection  

Committee are as follows:-

Name Edu.  Quali.

Age Experience Business  ability

Personality Total  Marks

Santhosh  N.K.

15 2 3 3.17 1.83 25.00

Sajeesh  Babu K.

15 2 4 3.83 2.00 26.83

11

Page 12

15) From the above discussion, it is clear that in terms of the  

guidelines, the Selection Committee consisting of 3  

experienced persons assessed the ability of the candidates  

with reference to the answers for their questions and awarded  

marks.  In the absence of any allegation as to mala fide action  

on the part of the selectors or disqualification etc., interference  

by the High Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under  

Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted.

16) To strengthen the above proposition, it is useful to refer a  

decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in The  

University of Mysore etc.  vs. C.D. Govinda Rao & Anr., AIR  

1965 SC 491.  The issue therein relates to one Anniah Gowda  

to show cause as to under what authority he was holding the  

post of a Research Reader in English in the Central College,  

Bangalore.  After considering the pleadings of both the parties,  

consultation by an expert and the stand of the University, this  

Court set aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the  

writ petition filed by the respondent therein.  While  

considering the said issue, the following conclusion of the  

Constitution Bench as to the opinions expressed by the  

12

Page 13

experts and interference by the Court is relevant.  It is seen  

that in paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Constitution Bench  

has noted that the High Court has criticized the report made  

by the Board and rejecting the criticism of the High Court in  

such academic matters, held as under:

“…….We are unable to see the point of criticism of the High  Court in such academic matters.  Boards of Appointments  are nominated by the Universities and when  recommendations made by them and the appointments  following on them, are challenged before courts, normally the  courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions  expressed by the experts.  There is no allegation about mala  fides against the experts who constituted the present Board;  and so, we think it would normally be wise and safe for the  courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts  who are more familiar with the problems they face than the  courts generally can be………….”

17) In a recent decision of this Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) vs.  

Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 372 wherein similar  

issue, namely, recommendations of Expert Committee and  

evaluation as well as judicial review under Art. 226 of the  

Constitution was considered by this Court.  A short question  

involved in that case was that whether the appellants therein  

(Dr. Basavaiah and Dr. Manjunath) were qualified to be  

appointed as Readers in Sericulture?  One Dr. H.L. Ramesh,  

respondent in both the appeals therein challenged the  

13

Page 14

appointments of both the appellants on the ground that they  

were not qualified for the post of Readers in Sericulture.  

Learned single Judge, on 11.10.2004, after examining the  

pleadings and scrutinizing the arguments of the parties  

dismissed the writ petition filed by Dr. H.L. Ramesh –  

respondent in W.P. No. 24300 of 1999.  Dr. H.L. Ramesh,  

aggrieved by the said judgment, preferred a writ appeal before  

the Division Bench of the High Court.  The writ appeal was  

allowed and the appointments of the appellants therein were  

set aside leaving it open to the University of Mysore to make  

fresh selection in accordance with the law.  The appellants,  

aggrieved by the said judgment, filed special leave petitions  

before this Court.   In the High Court as well as in this Court,  

the University filed affidavit stating that the Expert Committee  

consisting of highly qualified 5 distinguished experts evaluated  

the qualification, experience and the published works of the  

appellants and found them eligible and suitable.  In such  

circumstance, this Court observed in paragraph Nos. 20 & 21  

as under:

14

Page 15

“20. It is abundantly clear from the affidavit filed by the  University that the Expert Committee had carefully  examined and scrutinised the qualification, experience and  published work of the appellants before selecting them for  the posts of Readers in Sericulture. In our considered  opinion, the Division Bench was not justified in sitting in  appeal over the unanimous recommendations of the Expert  Committee consisting of five experts. The Expert Committee  had in fact scrutinised the merits and demerits of each  candidate including qualification and the equivalent  published work and its recommendations were sent to the  University for appointment which were accepted by the  University.

21. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to  show deference and consideration to the recommendation of  an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in  the field. In the instant case, the experts had evaluated the  qualification, experience and published work of the  appellants and thereafter recommendations for their  appointments were made. The Division Bench of the High  Court ought not to have sat as an appellate court on the  recommendations made by the country's leading experts in  the field of Sericulture.”

18) It is clear that in a matter of appointment/selection by an  

Expert Committee/Board consisting of qualified persons in the  

particular field, normally, the Courts should be slow to  

interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts, unless  

there is any allegation of mala fides against the experts who  

had constituted the Selection Committee.  Admittedly, in the  

case on hand, there is no allegation of mala fides against the 3  

experts in the Selection Committee.  In such circumstances,  

we are of the view that it would normally be wise and safe for  

the courts to leave the decision of selection of this nature to  

15

Page 16

the experts who are more familiar with the  

technicalities/nature of the work.  In the case on hand, the  

Expert Committee evaluated the experience certificates  

produced by the appellant herein, interviewed him by putting  

specific questions as to direct sale, home delivered products,  

hospitality/service industry etc. and awarded marks.  In such  

circumstances, we hold that the High Court ought not to have  

sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made by  

the Expert Committee.

19) In addition to the same, it is also asserted by the  

Corporation and informed to the High Court as well as to this  

Court that in order to ascertain the genuineness of the  

contents of experience certificates Exh. Nos. P2 and P3, the  

Corporation deputed responsible persons for verification and,  

in fact, they met the issuing authority and satisfied with the  

correctness of their statement.  In view of this aspect, we are  

satisfied that the learned single Judge as well as the Division  

Bench committed an error in interfering with the decision of  

the Selection Committee.  We have already noted that there is  

no allegation of mala fides against the members of the  

16

Page 17

Selection Committee.  Even on equity, the appellant is an  

unemployed M.Tech post-Graduate and the contesting  

respondent No.1 is working as an Assistant Engineer in the  

Kerala State Electricity Board, in other words, he is fully  

employed on the date of the selection of LPG distributorship.  

Looking at from any angle, the High Court was not justified in  

upsetting the decision of the Selection Committee,  

particularly, in the absence of any mala fides against them  

and there is no warrant for direction to re-assess the marks of  

the appellant afresh by excluding the marks for certificates  

(Exh. Nos. P2 and P3), particularly, in the light of the detailed  

explanation offered by the Corporation about the mode of  

selection.

20) In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the  

judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court dated  

16.03.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 7622 of 2010 as well as the  

judgment of the Division Bench dated 06.04.2011 in W.A. No.  

464 of 2011 and confirm the decision of the Selection  

Committee.   

17

Page 18

21) The civil appeal is allowed.  There shall be no order as to  

costs.  

...…………….…………………………J.           (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

..…....…………………………………J.   (RANJAN GOGOI)  

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 19, 2012.             

18

Page 19