K UNNIKISHNAN Vs. T THOMAS MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interesting question that arises in this Contempt of Court Case is whether in the preparation of select list following seniority cum merit principle, the Selection Board is bound to earmark certain percentage of marks towards seniority of the respective candidates

(2.) The petitioner herein was the 3rd petitioner in O.P. No. 5687/95 decided by me on 7.12.2001. His grievance is that the direction issued to the respondents in the said judgment has not been properly implemented and that only a camouflaged compliance was done in an arbitrary and illegal manner and flouting the letter and spirit of the directives given by this Court. Action against the 2nd respondent for committing contempt is therefore sought for.

(3.) The matter relates to promotion to the posts of Area Managers / Senior Managers which is a Scale II post in the South Malabar Gramin Bank. The grievance of the petitioners projected in the Original Petition was that the select list was not prepared in strict compliance with the principles governing seniority cum merit which was the basis to be adopted. After considering the same, I found that the select list in question was prepared after the Selection Committee had interviewed all the applicants and they were assigned marks taking into account various factors including length of service, performance at the interview, past performance etc., and that seniority cum merit principles were not correctly followed. It was directed, taking into account the fact that fresh interview at this distance of time would not be in the interests of justice, that the select list be revised after fixing minimum marks for selection and also taking into account the marks actually awarded at the interview and in strict compliance with the principles of seniority cum merit which were also elaborated in the judgment.