IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 6210 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANITHA.T.M., AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR.V, VALIYATHAZHATHIL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHIYARA, PUTHIYAPALAM VAZHI, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.PRAISHEEL PRAKASAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR GENERAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOZHIKODE. 5. CHEVAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1245 P.O., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE 673017 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. S.K.VINEETH, S/O.S.K.NARAYANAN PUTHIYAPADANNA, P.O.PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE 673004. 7. V.M.DINESHAN, S/O.V.M.VELAYUDHAN, VADAKKAYIL MEETHAL HOUSE, P.O.MEDICAL COLLEGE, UMMALLATOORTHAAZHAM, KOZHIKODE 673 008. 8. T.M.RAJEEV, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY, THUVATTU MEETHAL HOUSE, P.O.CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE. 9. C.V.SOUMIA, D/O.C.V.SURESH, PALATTU MEETHAL HOUSE, NELLIKODU, KOZHIKODE. /2/ 10. T.ARUNNATH, S/O.VISHWANATHAN NAIR, THAYYIL HOUSE, P.O.CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE. 11. C.RAJEEV, S/O.RAMDAS, ACHIKANDI MEETHAL HOUSE, P.O.NELLIKODE, NEAR SHIVA KSHETRAM, OLLOOR, KOZHIKODE. 12. S. SAJESH, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARA S, PRINCIES MADATHIL MUKKU, PO NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE. 13. P.T. ANJANA, D/O. P.T. JANARDHANAN, UTHRADAM HOUSE, P.O.CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-673017 ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH FOR R5 SMT.M.MANJU FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.6210 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the 5th respondent issued Ext.P2 vacancy notification inviting applications to six posts of Peons and one post of Night Watchman. Out of the six posts, one post was reserved for SC/ST candidates. It is stated that the petitioner was an applicant to the post of Peon, which was reserved for SC/ST candidates. Applicants were called for a written test and interview. Ext.P3 is the intimation that was issued to the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to appear in the written test and the interview that was scheduled on 22.2.2009. Petitioner submits that, about 265 candidates appeared in the written test. 2. It is stated that written test was followed by an interview which was conducted by a Sub Committee of the WP(c).No.6210/09 2 Board of Directors. According to the petitioner, at the time when the selection process was going on itself, there was a rumour that the Bank had already identified the candidates to be appointed. It is stated that, such deals have been fixed accepting huge sums as bribe and the process of selection was only an eye wash to legitimise the unholy deals that were arrived at by the Board members of the Bank with the candidates concerned. It is with this allegation and impleading respondents 6 to 13, who according to the petitioner are the candidates who were already chosen by the respondent bank, that this writ petition was filed on 25.2.2009. In the writ petition the prayer sought for is to quash the written test and interview that was held on 22.2.2009. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent bank and they have also produced a copy of the recommendation made by the Sub Committee. It is stated by the 5th respondent that, pursuant to the vacancy notification issued in newspapers, the eligible candidates were called for a written test and interview the venue of which was fixed at the WP(c).No.6210/09 3 Medical College Campus Higher Secondary School. It is stated that the written examination was held from 10.a.m to 11.30 a.m. It is also stated that the candidates were also called for an interview which was conducted by a Sub Committee, which included an external expert also. 4. From the copy of the recommendation made by the Sub Committee, it would appear that the valuation of the answer sheets was completed on 26.2.2009 and the Sub Committee finalized the ranked list on 27.2.2009 by adding the total marks and on that basis prepared a ranked list. Bank denied the allegation of irregularity in the written test and interview. They also dispute the allegation that they accepted huge sums as bribe for making appointments. 5. It is also stated that the 10th respondent in the writ petition, although had applied for the post of Peon did not appear for the written test and that the 13th respondent was not even an applicant. In so far as the 11th respondent is concerned, it is stated that he was appointed as a Night Watchman and not as a Peon as contended in the writ petition. Bank has also made available before me the final WP(c).No.6210/09 4 consolidated ranked list prepared, from which it is seen that, as far as the petitioner is concerned, she secured 28 marks in the written test and 8 marks in the interview. Rank No.1 among the reserved candidates had secured 47 marks in the written test and 15 marks in the interview. Similar is the case with regard to the other candidates, who all have secured much higher marks than the petitioner. 6. As already stated, the written test and interview for the post of Peon, to which post the petitioner was an applicant, was held on 22.2.2009. This writ petition was filed on 25.2.2009 and the allegation made is that the candidates were already chosen and that the consideration was the bribe that was paid. On 26.2.09 the writ petition came up for admission and again came up for orders on 12.3.2009. It was in the meanwhile that on 27.2.2009, the ranked list was finalized by the Sub Committee. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition, the case of the petitioner is that, it was entirely based on the bribe that was paid that the appointments were made. According to the petitioner, the written test and the interview were conducted only to WP(c).No.6210/09 5 legitimise the irregular selection that was made. 7. These allegations are resisted by the Bank, referring to the counter affidavit and the recommendation made by the interview committee. It is also contended that the petitioner having appeared for the interview without any complaint, it is not open to the petitioner to raise such allegations after realising that she is not selected. It is also pointed out that out of 265 persons participated in the interview, apart from the petitioner, no one else has raised any such allegations. 8. In the aforesaid factual situation, the question is whether accepting the interested plea of the petitioner, the selection process and the appointments made on that basis should be set aside. Apart from making the aforesaid allegations in the writ petition, petitioner has not made available any evidence to substantiate the veracity of the allegations made. True the interview was held in the afternoon on 22.2.2009 and more than 200 candidates were interviewed on that day. I should also concede that, since the interview was completed in the afternoon on 22.2.2009, it certainly raises a suspicion about the genuineness of the WP(c).No.6210/09 6 procedure that was adopted by the Bank. But, based on the suspicion so created alone, this court will not be justified in setting aside the process of selection and appointments made. If the petitioner had any materials, it was for her to have produced the same to prove the case of irregularity that is allegedly committed by the Bank. In my view, on the material produced it is not possible to interfere in the appointments made. Accordingly, leaving it open the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the appropriate authority, writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.6210/09 7