JUDGMENT -MARLAPALLE B.H., J.:---The petitioner No. 1 is a union and petitioner No. 2 is an employee of the respondent No. 1 Bank (State Bank of India) and at the relevant time was working under the respondent No. 3. The grievance raised in this petition pertains to the appointment of Trainee Officers by way of promotion. On 2nd March, 1991 the bank issued circular No. PER/KCL/of 1991 inviting applications for preparation of the list of eligible employees for appointment as Trainee Officers with effect from 1st August, 1991. The requirements, like minimum service, minimum age, educational qualifications etc., were set out in the said circular. The petitioner No. 2 responded and he went through the process of selection. He appeared for the written test held on 12th May, 1991 and he was declared successful in the same. He was called for viva-voce on 15th July, 1991 and he attended the same before the interview committee. However, when the names of successful candidates were announced he did not find his name in the list for Trainee Officers and, therefore, he approached this Court challenging the validity of the selection process consequent to the circular dated 2nd March, 1991 and prayed for quashing the selection and directions to appoint petitioner No. 2 as Trainee Officer for 1992 batch.

2.The main thrust of the challenge is on the ground that the written test held was for 150 marks and the interview assessment was for 100 marks i.e. 40% of the total marks i.e. written test plus interview. The objection of the petitioner is that fixing of 40% marks for oral interview is excessive and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court from time to time.

3.The respondent bank filed its reply and opposed the petition. It has emphasised that the selection process was undertaken as per rules and there was nothing arbitrary or illegal in the said selection process. The petitioner having gone through the selection procedure could not have turned back to challenge the very same procedure. It is also contended that the petitioner was aware, right from the time he had responded to the circular dated 2nd March, 1991, regarding the marks fixed for written test as well as for the interview and he did not raise any protest either orally or in writing before the petition was filed or before he underwent the selection process.

4.As directed by us, the bank has placed before us the policy for promotion to J.M.G.S.-I and Trainee Officers, that was existing prior to October, 1992 and modified thereafter. The guidelines for appointment of Trainee Officer, which were applicable to the subject selection, indicate that in addition to the qualifications and minimum service requirement the selection procedure consisted of written test and interview and also clarified that oral interview will be only for those who qualified in the written test. The distribution of marks for written test and interview was (a) written test: 150 marks, (b) interview: 100 marks. From October, 1992 onwards this was sought to be changed to (a) written test: 160 and (b) interview: 40. It is clear that the existing selection procedure consisted of 250 marks whereas the revised procedure (from October, 1992) consisted of 200 marks.

5.In the case of (Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and others)1, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1777, it was clarified that the earlier decision in the case of (Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi)2, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 487 and (Pariakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu)3, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2303, were the cases pertaining to admission to colleges and the provisions for marks for interview and written test could not be the same for admission to colleges and entry into public services. While dealing with the ambit of written test and oral interview for public services, the Apex Court observed:

" 6. ............. On the other hand, in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way, subject

Click Here to Read the rest of this document