IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1155 of 2005(A) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.562/2003 Dated 30/03/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS: -------------- 1. S.V.SUKUMARAN NAIR, WATCHMAN, (TEMPORARY) STATE BANK OF INDIA, MARAKKADA BRANCH, TRIVADNRUM. 2. C.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, WATCHMAN(TEMPORARY), STATE BANK OF INDIA, MARAKKADA BRANCH, TRIVADNRUM. 3. M.SALIM, WATCHMAN(TEMPORARY), STATE BANK OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM BRANCH, TRIVADNRUM. BY ADV. SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, LMS COMPOUND, TRIVANDRUM. 3. RETIRED COLONEL GEORGE, CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, LMS COMPOUND, TRIVADNRUM. 4. R.SISUPALAN, ZONAL OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LMS COMPOUND, TRIVADNRUM. 5. J.P.SURESHKUMAR, WATCHMAN(TEMPORARY), STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, LMS COMPOUND, TRIVANDRUM. 6. J.JAYAKUMAR, PANDVILLA HOUSE, VATTAPPARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 7. N.T.MONACHAN, MUNDAKATHIL HOUSE, KARAKKAL P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. SRI.J.GEORGE SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE -R4 AND R5 SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR -R7 SRI.J.GEORGE FOR R6 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009 ALONG WITH WA NO. 1177 OF 2005 AND WA NO. 1611 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.A. NOS. 1155, 1177 & 1611 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. W.A.No.1155 of 2005 The appellants are the writ petitioners. They are ex servicemen. They were sponsored by the Zilla Sainik Board for appointment as temporary guards in the State Bank of India at Thiruvananthapuram. They were so engaged in 1992, 1993 and 1996 respectively. While so, the Bank took steps for regular selection to the post of Armed Guards. The writ petitioners were also considered from Thiruvananthapuram District for regular appointment. The physical efficiency test and interview were held in September, 2001. The appellants submitted that they were selected and in the rank list prepared pursuant to the above exercise, they were assigned rank Nos.9, 6 and 12 respectively. When the said rank list was in force, W.A. NOS.1155,1177 & 1611/05 2 the Bank undertook a fresh selection in 2002. The appellants were not included in the new rank list. In that context, the Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: a) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 & 2 to permit the petitioners to continue to work as Armed Guard/Watchman in the respective Branches, dehors Ext.P6 letter; b) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 & 2 to include the name of petitioners 1 to 3 in the list of selected candidates for recruitment to the post of Armed Guard/Watchman in the Bank on the basis of their selection and inclusion in the list of selected candidates based on the interview conducted by the Selection Board on 13.9.2001; c) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 & 2 not to terminate the service of petitioners 1 to 3 by retaining temporary Watchmen recruited in the Bank during the year 2000-2001 or by retaining persons like respondents 4 to 7. The appellants submit that in the selection made in September, 2001, they were selected and included in the select list. Ext.P6 list published pursuant to the 2002 selection includes the appellants. It is a list of W.A. NOS.1155,1177 & 1611/05 3 persons who were disqualified in the selection held in September, 2002. According to the appellants, the selection was vitiated by manipulation and mala fides owing to personal illwill towards them and they were excluded from the list of qualified hands and included in Ext.P6 list. 2. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that though the selection was made in 2001, the Corporate Head Office did not approve that list. The approving authority found that there were certain irregularities in the conduct of selection and, therefore, did not approve the selection list prepared pursuant to the exercise in 2001. It is also submitted that the appellants were not found eligible for inclusion in the list by the competent authority as per the relevant norms governing selection to the post of Armed Guards in the selection made in 2002. The appellants filed reply affidavit disputing the submission made in the counter affidavit whereupon the respondents filed an additional counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition. It was found that the appellants did not succeed in the test and interview and, therefore, they were not selected. 3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank made available the file relating to the W.A. NOS.1155,1177 & 1611/05 4 selection. The file would show that in the District level panel prepared for Thiruvananthapuram in 2001, the appellants were included. The Corporate Head Office was moved by letter dated 8.8.2002. The said communication was addressed by the Deputy General Manager to the General Manager, South Kerala, Local Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram. The General Manager, South Kerala replied stating that the appropriate authority of the Bank has decided to conduct fresh physical test and interview for the reasons mentioned therein. The said communication is dated 30.8.2002. 4. Though several contentions were vehemently argued before us concerning the propriety of the selection, the relevant orders governing the same etc., we notice that pursuant to the selection held in 2002, the selected candidates were appointed. We are told by the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank that a further selection was made in 2005 and appointments were made. In this case, as per Ext.P6, which is a list containing the names of disqualified persons, the appellants are held to be disqualified. But, they have chosen not to challenge that order. Further, only three selected candidates, pursuant to the selection process undertaken in 2002, were impleaded in this Writ Petition, but there is no representative impleadment. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the W.A. NOS.1155,1177 & 1611/05 5 appellants in this case, even if they are entitled for the same. Regarding the allegation of mala fide, we notice that they are only bald allegations. No material is available on record to substantiate the allegations. The appellants were temporary hands. In the regular selection, they failed to get a place in the select list. Naturally, to accommodate the selected candidates, the appellants were sent out of service. Except raising some disputed facts, no tenable grounds were raised by them for interfering with the selection. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. W.A. No. 1177 of 2005 5. The contentions raised in this appeal are identical to the contentions raised in W.A. No.1155 of 2005. In this case, we notice that none of the selected candidates is impleaded. Therefore, this appeal is also dismissed. W.A. No. 1611 of 2005 6. In this case, we notice that the disqualified candidates including the appellants have challenged the selection made. They have raised an additional ground to the effect that the selection process was vitiated for reason of allotting 40 marks for interview. In this connection, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned W.A. NOS.1155,1177 & 1611/05 6 selection and also the impugned order. They have produced Exts.R2(a) guidelines governing recruitment of Armed Guards in permanent vacancies. The said guidelines show that for physical efficiency test, 60 marks are earmarked and for interview, 40 marks are earmarked. For awarding marks for interview, further parameters are specified. They are (i) for appearance and bearing 10 marks (ii) job skills - 10 marks for fire arms and 10 marks for fire fighting and (iii) for general awareness 10 marks. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that Ext.R2 (a) guidelines were issued in July, 2002 and so the same cannot have governed the selection made in 2001. Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank pointed out that Ext.R2(a) is a compilation of circulars issued from time to time. Further, after cancelling the 2001 selection, 2002 selection was made in December, 2002 whereas Ext.R2(a) was issued on 21.7.2002. The Bank has also filed a detailed counter affidavit in the Writ Petition dealing with the averments contained therein. The Bank has stated that the appellants did not fair well in the test and interview and, therefore, they did not find a place in the select list and were included among the persons disqualified. The appellants have not filed any reply affidavit and none of the selected candidates is impleaded in the Writ Petition. Further, the W.A. NOS.1155,1177 & 1611/05 7 attack made against the propriety of the selection can best be described as raising some disputed question of facts. We note that no tenable grounds are made out in the Writ Petition or in the Appeal Memorandum warranting interference with the selection process of Armed Guards. In the result, this appeal also fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NOS.1155,1177 & 1611/05 8 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A.NOS.1155, 1177 & 1611/2005 JUDGMENT 2nd June, 2009 W.A. NOS.1155,1177 & 1611/05 9