A selection process cannot be challenged without formally contesting the validity of the rank list; the appellants' rights to relief were deemed invalid.

JUDGMENT

[WA Nos.622/2018, 1033/2018, 1058/2018, 1682/2018]

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Regard being had to the similitude of the matters, these Writ Appeals have been heard analogously and are decided by a common judgment.

2. The intra-Court Appeals under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 assail the judgment dated 18.01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.30759 of 2015 and other connected writ petitions.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the respondents in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed challenging the appointment of the appellants to the post of Class IV Grade II staff in the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’) after conducting writ- ten test and interview. The Writ Petition was filed with a prayer to recall the appointment of the appellants herein and further to revise the rank list by publishing the marks ob- tained by all the candidates in the interview and further to include the name of the writ petitioners in the rank list. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition holding that the selection leading to appointments of appellants are liable to be set aside, not only on account of the excessive marks allotted to interview but also for violation of Regula- tion-7 of the Staff Regulations and further directed to conduct a selection afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions in the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations , 1963. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached this Court.

Appellant’s contentions

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in disposing of the Writ Peti- tion by interfering with the select list when there was no chal- lenge against the select list.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the learned single Judge erred in assuming that awarding 40% marks for interview would vitiate the selection process. It is well settled law that percentage of marks for interview would depend upon the nature of job and accompanying cir- cumstances. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the ap- pellants prays for setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the Writ Appeals.

Respondents’ contention

6. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation opposed the appellants’ prayer and submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error and the Writ Appeals deserve to be dismissed.

Discussion & Analysis

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. There is no appearance for the private respondents.

8. The reliefs sought in the Writ Petition No.30759/2015 are as follows:

(i) call for the entire records relating to the selection to the post of Class IV Grad II post in KSWHC and declare that all ap- pointment made from Exhibit P4 ranked list is void and issue a ę writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 1^st respondent to recall all appointments made from Exhibit P4.

(ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the Ist respondent to revise the ranked list by publishing the marks obtained by all the candi- dates in the interview and accordingly include the name of pe- titioners in the appropriate place in the ranked list and afford appointment to petitioners against existing vacancies in the post of Class IV Grade-II in the Kerala State Warehousing Cor- poration.

(iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropri- ate writ, direction or order commanding the 1^st respondent to grant all protection and relaxation given to Scheduled tribes and