IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1930 WA.No. 2261 of 2008 ( AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.14086/2006 Dated 28/05/2008) .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ B.MITRAN, BHARATHI VILAS, KANNOOKARA P.O., MADAPALLY COLLEGE VIA, VATAKARA, CALICUT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KANNUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KANNUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KANNUR, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY,Ag.C.J. & V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 2261 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Koshy,Ag.C.J.: Appellant/petitioner applied for being considered as Deputy General Manager in the District Co-operative Bank, Kannur on the basis of Ext.P1 notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. There was a written test and interview. He passed the written test. Appellant was the only person who passed the written test for the post of Deputy General Manager in Kannur District. But, he was not given selection, as he failed in the interview. He contested the case contending that since there is no minimum mark prescribed for interview in the notification, there is no justification in prescribing the minimum mark after the selection process has started. The appellant relied on various decisions of this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court in support of his contentions viz., Ajayan v. State of Kerala [2006(3) KLT 854], State Bank of Travancore v. Soumini [1984 KLT 135], Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi [(2008) 7 SCC 11], State of Punjab and others v. Manjit Singh and others [AIR 2003 SC W.A. NO.2261 of 2008 :-2-: 4580] and Indulekha v. State of Kerala [2001(1) KLT 951]. There is no doubt for the proposition that once the selection process started, no cut off mark can be fixed unless that is fixed in the rules or in the notification or before selection process started. In the impugned notification, it was not specifically stated that there is cut off mark prescribed for interview. But the stand of the Public Service Commission was that the post to which the selection was being made is one of the topmost executive posts of the District Co-operative Banks and the suitability of the candidate has to be duly assessed keeping in mind all relevant factors and that the interview is conducted to assess the candidate's overall intellectual and personal qualities and the written test is insufficient to measure the candidates initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, co-operativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity etc. There is no doubt that the above qualities are necessary for manning the post of Deputy General Manager in a Co-operative Bank which deals with public funds and public. Counsel for the Public Service Commission, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lila W.A. NO.2261 of 2008 :-3-: Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Others [(1981) 4 SCC 159], submits that the file would show that even though the appellant passed the written test, he got only two marks in the interview. It is a selection post and it is not a promotion post and selection has to be made solely on the basis of merit. It is not a selection based on seniority cum fitness or fitness cum seniority or merit cum seniority alone. The members who interviewed the appellant found that he is not suitable for appointment to the post of Deputy General Manager and therefore, he was not selected. The appellant secured two out of twenty marks in the interview and two among three members of the Board have specifically written that the candidate was found to be not suitable for the post. The learned single Judge held that it was not within the domain of judicial review to sit in judgment on the findings of expert bodies like an Interview Board in the case in hand, except in case of clear illegality, arbitrariness, demonstrated bias, mala fides etc. Apart from the above, it is pointed out by the P.S.C. that in the Kerala Public Service Commission, Rules of Procedure, Rule 12 provides for selecting a candidate on the basis of interview. Rule 12 reads as follows:- W.A. NO.2261 of 2008 :-4-: “12. All the candidates interviewed and who obtained not less than the minimum marks fixed by the Commission shall be included in the ranked list prepared in the order of merit: Provided where the candidates have been called for interview for the purpose of satisfying the rules of reservation alone such candidates who have got not less than the prescribed minimum marks in the interview shall be included in the supplementary list or lists arranged in the order of merit among the candidates belonging to each class:..............” (emphasis supplied) The above rule was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 5th October, 1976. Clause (i) of Rule 202 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Office Manual, 1977 (Chapter 11) deals with recruitment rules which is as follows:- “202. Basis of Marking: (i) If selection to a post is finalised by written test and interview, the maximum marks for interview shall be 20% of the maximum marks for the Written Test. The Basis of ranking in such cases shall be marks for the Written Test + Marks for the interview.” Rule 208 provides for minimum marks which reads as follows:- “208. All candidates admitted for the interview will be considered for inclusion in the ranked list except those who fail to secure a W.A. NO.2261 of 2008 :-5-: minimum of 20% marks at the interview.” Here the maximum marks fixed for interview is 20. The minimum mark secured for pass in the interview is 4 i.e., 20% of 20. The appellant has secured only 2 marks for interview. Therefore, the P.S.C. denied the selection of the petitioner for the post of Deputy General Manager. The Manual came into force in the year 1977. In the absence of any other rules, the P.S.C. can rely on the above Manual as rules governing selection. Apart from the above, the appellant is found to be not suitable. So we agree with the stand of the P.S.C. We cannot say that non-selection of the petitioner who was the sole candidate in the written test is illegal. The P.S.C. shall make fresh selection process to fill up the post. In the above circumstances, we agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy, Acting Chief Justice MBS/ V.K.Mohanan, Judge W.A. NO.2261 of 2008 :-6-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.A. NO.2261 of 2008 :-7-: Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T DATED: 10-2008 W.A. NO.2261 of 2008 :-8-: