IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 11801 of 2005(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, AGED 50 YEARS, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KANJIRAPUZHA BRANCH, THACHAMPARA, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT 7/296(1), HARISANKAR ROAD, TAREKKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN, SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ, SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN, SRI.P.A.KUMARAN, SMT.VINEETHA B. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CO-OPERATE OFFICE, BOMBAY. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONNEL AND HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK OF INDIA, L.H.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11801/2005-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 12/07/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE BANK'S CIRCULAR LETTER NO. 91/2003-04 DTD. 15/12/03. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No.11801 of 2005 ====================================== Dated this the 25th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Special Assistant in the Kanjirappuzha Branch of the State Bank of India. The next promotion post for employees like the petitioner is Junior Management Grade Scale I. Promotion to Junior Management Grade Scale I is through two channels, namely (1) regular channel (merit cum seniority) and (2) seniority channel. The selection through the regular channel is based on the marks secured in the written test, performance appraisal, interview and also the length of service. The petitioner first appeared for the selection to Junior Management Grade Scale I in the year 2000. Though he successfully went through the written test, performance appraisal and interview, as there were persons senior to him and there were no adequate number of vacancies, the petitioner was not promoted to Junior Management Grade Scale I. The petitioner again appeared for the selection process through the regular channel in the year 2004. By then, the State Bank of India had changed the pattern of the question paper for written test. A written test under the new format was WP(C)No.11801/2005 2 held on 11.7.2004. The question paper consisted of three parts, namely, Parts (B), (C) and (D). The petitioner did not succeed in the 2004 selection. He thereupon filed this writ petition contending that the question paper booklet supplied to him in a sealed cover did not contain the third part. This petitioner has in this writ petition sought the following reliefs: i) declare that the petitioner is entitled to be assigned marks for the missing part of questionnaire in his question set and that he is entitled to be considered for promotion to Junior Management Grade Scale I based on such marks. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to assign marks for the missing part of the questionnaires and to consider the petitioners for promotion to Junior Management Grade Scale I based on such marks. iii) Alternatively to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the third respondent to consider and pass speaking order on P1 after affording due opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.” 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit contending that the change in the pattern of the examination was made known to all employees by Ext.R2(a) dated 15.12.2003, which was circulated to all branches in Kerala and that the petitioner did not answer any of the questions in Part-D. It was submitted that the petitioner did not therefore fall within the list of persons eligible for consideration against the available vacancies. Today when the case was called on for hearing, Sri.George Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the WP(C)No.11801/2005 3 respondents handed over to me the question paper and answer booklet issued to the petitioner. The first page contains the name of the petitioner, his roll number and his signature. The facing page of the booklet states that it consists of three parts. Instruction No.2 in the booklet states that the question paper has three parts and that the candidate has to give short descriptive answers for all the parts. A scrutiny of the question paper/answer booklet shows that the petitioner has not attempted to answer any of the questions in Part-D. In fact all the 4 pages in Part-D of the booklet are blank. They bear only the examiner's signature. I also noticed that the petitioner scored only 14 marks out of 30. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner did not attempt to answer any of the questions in Part-D, he was not awarded any mark for Part-D and as he scored only 14 marks out of 35, he failed to qualify for promotion. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel on either side. The only contention raised in the writ petition is that the question paper/answer booklet supplied to the petitioner did not contain the third part. The petitioner has no other grievance regarding the selection process except that the change in the pattern of the question paper. The question paper/answer booklet which I have perused gives sufficient and adequate instructions to the candidates appearing for the examination. They WP(C)No.11801/2005 4 were alerted of the fact that the booklet contains three parts and that all the questions have to be answered. Parts B,C and D of the question paper/answer booklet supplied to the petitioner contain the same serial number. On verification, I find that all the pages are in tact. The petitioner has no case that on seeing the booklet supplied to him, he had alerted the examiner immediately. In the light of the above fact, I am persuaded to take the view that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The petitioner, who failed to qualify in the selection process for the reason that he did not answer any of the questions in Part-D, cannot claim or be granted the reliefs prayed for by him in this Writ Petition. The writ petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/