Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 81370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
MRS. MERYKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 5303 OF 2020 | WP(C) NO. 9137 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.VINOD BHAT, KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN, SMT.MINI V.MENON
For the Respondents: ADV.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN, VINOD S. PILLAI, SREELAKSHMI R.MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M., ADV.JAWAHAR JOSE, SRI.P.RAKESH, SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN, SRI.FEBIN J.VELUKARAN, ADV.REKHA VASUDEVAN, ADV.FRANCIS J.MATHEW.
Selection processes must be transparent, and mere familial connections in appointments do not jeopardize their validity unless substantial evidence of bias is demonstrated.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Selection process for appointment - Allegations of nepotism and irregularities in the recruitment process challenged - The Court noted that relatives of Bank employees being appointed does not automatically vitiate the selection. The selection process must be based on transparent, fair criteria without external influences. The Court ruled that there was no substantial proof of favoritism or procedural misconduct that warranted intervention. (Paras 2, 4, 14, 19)
(B) Evidence - Allegations of favoritism - The mere participation of relatives of staff in the selection does not invalidate the process; it is essential to demonstrate that the process was tainted by mala fides or serious procedural inconsistencies. The Court provided precedence from Apex Court judgments reaffirming that courts should not interfere unless significant illegalities are evident within the selection process. (Paras 10, 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners engaged in temporary positions at the Bank applied for a permanent position but alleged bias in favor of candidates connected to Bank employees. They petitioned for records related to the selection and sought the quashing of the results, affirming their applications for consideration.
Findings of Court:
The selection process was conducted adhering to procedures defined in a Memorandum of Settlement, with no significant evidence showing nepotism or procedural violation. The Court found no grounds to question the fairness or transparency of the selection process.
Issues: Whether the selection was influenced by nepotism or biases and if the published guidelines were violated in the appointment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decisions confirmed that if candidates participated in a selection and later challenged its integrity without substantial evidence, their claims are unlikely to succeed; the sanctity of the selection process must be maintained unless clear and convincing evidence is presented. The timing of no complaints during the selection process also weakens the case against the outcomes.
Result: Writ petitions are dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. selection process initiated for appointments driving conflicts based on nepotism. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on procedural violations and constitutional rights raised by petitioners. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. defenses mounted regarding the legality and constitution of the selection committee. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. legal precedents establish the potency of judicial intervention into recruitment processes. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court dismisses the petitions, reinforcing fair selection processes without substantial allegations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
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 f
