SHAMEER .S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the process of interview in terms of Ext.P1 notification. Ext.P1 was published by the 3rd respondent inviting applications to fill up among other posts, eight number of posts of Executive Trainee (Chemical). The qualification prescribed for the post was First Class Degree in Chemical Engineering.

(2.) THE petitioner applied for the said post and written test was conducted. The petitioner was shown as having rank No.7 for the written test. But after the interview he was not selected. The petitioner has produced Ext.P5, which is the bio-data of all the candidates who have applied for the said post. Petitioner's name is shown as Sl.No.7. The marks obtained by all the candidates for the written test and interview is also shown. The main complaint of the petitioner is that though the written test was conducted for 100 marks, in Ext.P5 it is reduced to 50 marks so that half of the marks obtained by the candidates were alone taken into consideration. Normally 20 marks was prescribed as the maximum marks for interview, whereas in Ext.P5 it is seen that marks awarded for interview was out of 50. By adopting such a method, according to the petitioner, the weightage of written test was considerably reduced and the management got an advantage to tilt the total marks by giving exorbitant marks in the interview. It is contended that this process would create a situation where the management will be in a position to control and interfere with the selection process by which the marks in the written test may not have much relevance and what transpires in the interview alone matters. Still further, it is contended that it is possible for the management to show favouritism by awarding higher marks to those persons whom they want to appoint.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit is filed by the company inter alia admitting the fact that earlier the procedure was to give 100 marks for the written test and 20 marks for the interview. But the change in mark allotment was done with a view to give required weightage to the candidates who are capable to think on his feet and to give due consideration to his inter personal skills. According to the company, the work environment of Executive Trainee (Chemical) is in a unit categorised as a major accident hazardous factory which requires not only knowledge but also quick thinking and capability to adapt to the environment which is duly assessed in the personal interview. They denied the averment of bias or favourtism or mala fides in respect of the selection process. According to them, by reducing the marks obtained out of 100 to 50 is to select successful candidates by giving 50-50 weightage for the written examination and interview and to compute the marks obtained accordingly so that the interview has much wider scope in selecting the candidate especially when the idea was to employ them in a major accident hazardous factory wherein they should have the necessary capability to attend such a unit. It is also contended that respondents 7 and 8 were appointed as Executive Trainee on the basis of their total marks obtained in the written examination and interview. In regard to the allegation with reference to the qualification of 8th respondent it is contended that majority of the subject studied by the B.Tech Bio-Chemical Engineering candidate are one and the same as that of candidates having B.Tech Chemical Engineering. Therefore, the company considered the 8th respondent for the post after giving due weightage to his performance in interview and written examination. 8th respondent is appointed to the said post under the O.B.C category which is available for Ezhava candidates and the 7th respondent was appointed to the said post for the reservation available to OBC candidate in the Muslim community quota.