The legitimacy of employment selections cannot be challenged solely based on familial relationships unless sinister motives or procedural violations are demonstrated.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of September, 2022 The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5303 of 2020 were engaged on contract/daily wage basis in the second respondent Bank. While so, they applied for the post of 'Safai Karmachari-cum-Sepoy' pursuant to Ext.P3 notification issued by the Bank. As part of the selection process, an interview was conducted on 04.10.2019 and the candidates were informed that the result of interview will be intimated in due course. According to the petitioners, no rank list was published after the interview were taken by surprise on coming to know about the appointment of respondents 4 to 48. This writ petition is filed alleging nepotism, favouritism and procedural violations in the selection and appointment of respondents 4 to 48. The following reliefs are sought in the writ petition;

“i. To call for all the records of the selection/appointment procedure pursuant to Ext.P3 and ascertain the legality of the selection process undertaken by respondents 1 to 2;

ii. To issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ to quash the selection process selecting respondents 4 to 25 to the post of 'Safai Karmachari-cum-Sepoy' in the 2nd respondent bank.

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ directing respondents 1, 2 and 3 to consider the Ext.P1 and P1(a) applications of the petitioners to the post of 'Safai Karmachari-cum-Sepoy' in a transparent manner by disclosing the marks secured for the interview by all the applicants.”

2. Adv.Anagha Lakshmy Raman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5303 of 2020 put forth the following arguments;

➔ The entire process of selection is vitiated by favouritism, nepotism and procedural irregularities. From among respondents 4 to 48, 19 persons (4 to 21) are immediate relatives of employees/officers of the Bank and some are close relatives of the members of the Interview Committee. In an attempt to suppress this illegality, the second respondent did not even publish the rank list.

➔ The Interview Committee was not constituted in terms of the guidelines. For instance, one of the members of the Interview Committee namely, Sri.George Varghese, was included as a member, without being included in the proceedings relating to the constitution of the Interview Committee. The constitution of an impartial and competent Selection Board and formulation of proper procedure by that Board will go a long way in making the process of selection and recruitment, objective, fair and reasonable, apart from bringing transparency to the process of recruitment.

➔ From among the respondents, 5 candidates (respondents 15,16,17, 20 and 42) belong to the reserved category, but are included as general category candidates. Being so, they are not entitled for the relaxation applicable to reserved category candidates. In spite of this fact, those respondents were granted relaxation in age. Moreover, by including reserved category candidates as general candidates, the second respondent managed to induct others in the reserved category.

➔ The selection based on interview was conducted in gross violation of the interdiction in Exts.P11 and P12 notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance. The notifications required all Public Sector Banks to discontinue interview as the mode of selection for clerical and sub-staff posts by 31.12.2015.

➔ Selection and appointment to the post in State and Public Sector Undertakings should conform to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Articles 14 and 16. The objective of conducting selection for making appointment is to select the best and most suitable persons. In the instant case, the selection was not based on performance, but extraneous considerations, which is anathema as far as public employment is concerned. This position has been clearly laid down by the Apex Court inRamjit Singh Kardam v Sanjeev Kumar [ 2020(20) SCC 209 ].

➔ Continuance in office of persons selected by means that are not fair, transparent and reasonable will p