IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20228 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Kali Charan S/O Shri Poona Ram R/O Cottage Servant Qr., P.M.C.H., P.O.-Bankipur, P.S.-Pirbahore, Distt.-Patna (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Bank Of India Having Its Head Office At CRPD, Corporate Centre, Tulsiani Chamber, 1st Floor (West Wing), Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, Through Its Managing Director. 2. Managing Director, State Bank Of India Having Its Head Office At CRPD, Corporate Centre, Tulsiani Chamber, 1st Floor (West Wing), Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. 3. General Manager, State Bank Of India Central Recruitment And Promotion Deptt., Having Its Head Office At CRPD, Corporate Centre, Tulsiani Chamber, 1st Floor (West Wing), Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. 4. Deputy Manager, State Bank Of India Having Its Head Office At CRPD, Corporate Centre, Tulsiani Chamber, 1st Floor (West Wing), Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. 5. General Manager, State Bank Of India Bihar And Jharkhand, Having Its Local Head Office At Anta Ghat (Judges Court Road), P.S.-Gandhi Maidan Distt.- And Town-Patna-800001. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL) 10 15-11-2011 Heard Mr. Chaubey for the petitioner and Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha for the State Bank of India (for short “ the Bank”). In this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the Bank to appoint him on the post of Assistant Manager (Fire) in pursuance of selection process undergone vide Advertisement No. Patna High Court CWJC No.20228 of 2010 (10) 2 dt.15-11-2011 CRPD/SCO-SBI/2010-11/01 (Annexure-1) A brief statement of facts indispensable for the disposal of the case may first be noticed. Respondent Bank published an advertisement (Annexure-1) for recruitment of Specialised Cadre Officers (SCO) for which applications were to be filed on line on or before 15.7.2010. Petitioner, finding himself qualified for the post of Assistant Manager (Fire), applied claiming himself to be a candidate belonging to Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. Let it be recorded that out of 7 posts of Assistant Manager (Fire), 02 posts were reserved for the OBC category. The advertisement prescribed Essential Academic Qualification as well as Experience for the said post as under: “Essential Academic Qualification: Graduate of the Institute of Fire Engineers (India/UK) or should have completed Divisional officers Course at National Fire Service College (NFSC), Nagpur or should be B.E.(Fire) from NFSC. Experience: Candidate should have intimate knowledge of hydrant system, fire detection system, sprinkler system and evacuation problems and also have minimum 5 years experience as Station Officer or equivalent post in a City Fire Brigade or in a State Fire Service or In-charge Fire Officer in big industrial complex. Practical experience is not essential in case of candidate possession B.E. (Fire) degree from National Fire Service College, Nagpur.” After scrutiny and short-listing, the petitioner and other eligible applicants were called in for interview. Aforesaid call Patna High Court CWJC No.20228 of 2010 (10) 3 dt.15-11-2011 letter is Annexure-2. Petitioner presented himself for interview whereafter he was interviewed by a Board. Similarly, other candidates short listed under the said category were also interviewed. Respondent Bank thereafter published a final select list of only 4 candidates (Annexure-4) which includes 02 from the OBC category. Name of the petitioner did not find place in the select list. The petitioner has asserted that he had scored higher marks than 02 selected candidates under the said category (not made party respondent herein). It has also been asserted that the two selected candidates had lesser experience than the petitioner. Petitioner has recounted his experience in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit. In paragraph 9 of the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has averred as under: “That the petitioner states that the persons selected in Other Backward Class Category namely Dananjay Kumar and Khem Raj has least experiences than the petitioner because these out of two Dhananjay Kumar is working in the unit of petitioner as such he is aware about his experience that he has not completed the Station Officers Course and in that view of the matter, the Respondent Bank will only say about the requisite experience of another selected candidate Khem Raj.” According to him, one of the selected candidates namely Dhananjay Kumar had not completed requisite number of years as the Station Officers and as such he was not eligible to be considered for the recruitment on the said post. Patna High Court CWJC No.20228 of 2010 (10) 4 dt.15-11-2011 The respondents have contested the writ petition. Two sets of counter affidavit and reply to supplementary affidavit have been filed. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner besides others were short listed and was/were called in and interviewed as they were found academically qualified having requisite experience. They were evaluated and awarded marks at the interview. Those who were found most suitable were selected. It has been stated that petitioner secured 70 marks whereas the two selected candidates under the said category secured more marks than the petitioner. In paragraph 9 of the second counter affidavit, it has been disclosed that the two selected candidates under OBC category had secured 71 and 72 marks. Relevant information in this regard had already been supplied to the petitioner on requisition made in this regard by him. On a perusal of the advertisement, it appears that it prescribes essential academic qualification. Graduate of the institute of Fire Engineers (India/U.K) or candidates having completed Divisional Officers Course at National Fire Service College (NFSC), Nagpur or a Bachelor of Engineering (Fire) from NFSC was/were prescribed as the essential academic qualification. It is not the case of the petitioner that the two selected candidates do not possess any of the aforesaid academic qualification. Patna High Court CWJC No.20228 of 2010 (10) 5 dt.15-11-2011 Interview is aimed at evaluating the experience gained by a candidate besides other administrative ingredients. Petitioner has referred to and relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Birendra Prasad Singh and others versus State of Bihar (1993 (1) P.L.J.R. 206). On a perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the ratio laid down therein is not at all applicable to the facts of the case. As I have already noticed, it is not the case of the petitioner that the selected candidates do not fulfill the essential academic qualification or the experience in the required field. On going through the entire pleadings made in the petition and in the supplementary affidavit, it appears that the claim of the petitioner is confined to one aspect of the matter that he possesses greater experience in the field. What emerges from the materials on record is that all the short listed candidates including the petitioner fulfilled the required essential academic qualification and the experience needed therefor. In such circumstances, they were interviewed and evaluated by a Board whereat the selected candidates were allotted higher marks than the petitioner. There is no allegation of mala fide attributed to the members constituting the board. In view of the aforesaid, in my view, the petitioner has failed to make out a case meriting invocation of high prerogative Patna High Court CWJC No.20228 of 2010 (10) 6 dt.15-11-2011 and discretionary writ jurisdiction to grant the relief. The matter can be judged from yet another angle. Respondents have resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that having participated in the selection process and declared unsuccessful thereat, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take a volta face and challenge the entire selection process. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court since reported in 2011 (3) PLJR 861 (Yogesh Kumar versus Union of India). I had the occasion to deal with the aforesaid aspect of the matter in paragraph 14 of Yogesh Kumar (supra) as under: “This matter may be viewed from yet another angle also. The petitioners were found eligible for written test and was called in therefor. They participated therein and thereafter was/were shortlisted for oral interview. On being summoned, they appeared at the oral interview conducted by a team of persons of high integrity and caliber and after having failed to get the desired result, filed the present writ petitions challenging the process/procedure adopted at the interview as unfair, discriminatory and biased. The Supreme court having noticed the aforesaid facts refused relief in Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, (1986) Suppl. SCC 285 = A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1043. Same view has been held by the Supreme Court in the State of Bihar vs. Madan Lal (supra) (sic.). Ratio laid down in aforesaid cases, in my view, would also be applicable to the present case.” On a consideration of the submissions, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. For the reasons noted above, the application is dismissed. Patna High Court CWJC No.20228 of 2010 (10) 7 dt.15-11-2011 There shall be no order as to costs. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)