STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE Vs. SOUMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Bank of Travancore, Trivandrum, the 1st respondent in O. P. No. 1328 of 1981 - G has come up with this writ appeal. Our learned brother Chandrasekhar Menon, J. has allowed the writ petition. The writ petitioner is stated to be a Clerk - Typist in the State Bank of Travancore; and she had appeared for written test conducted for promotion as officers junior management grade (groups A and B). She is stated to have come but successful in the written test and she was also called for interview. According to the writ petitioner, she had done well in the interview also. It has been averred that the petitioner, who is a double graduate, was having a clean record of service with no adverse entry against her in the confidential reports. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 3 not to make regular promotions on the basis of Ext. P4, or to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P4 select list prepared by the authority as it is patently arbitrary and discriminatory, violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. Other incidental reliefs sought in the writ petition include the inclusion of the petitioner in the select list and the grant of promotion to her accordingly.

(2.) In the counter affidavit it is not disputed that the petitioner had fared well in the written test; nor is there any dispute in regard to the averments made in the writ petition with respect to her qualifications. The only reason for her non inclusion in the select list for promotion is that she failed to obtain the minimum percentage of marks prescribed at the interview. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant respondent that the allotment of marks is as follows:

(3.) The learned Judge found that the interview played an overwhelmingly important part so as to make it the decisive factor to disqualify a candidate when he did not get the minimum percentage of marks fixed, and that such arbitrary rule vitiated the selection process. The learned Judge also said that persons who did not approach the Court in time would not be entitled to any relief; and therefore interests of justice would be served by directing the inclusion of the petitioner also in the select list provided the aggregate of the mark obtained by her in the written and oral tests was found to exceed that of any one who had been selected, proceeding on the basis that there was no qualifying minimum marks fixed for the interview. In the matter of seniority among those selected etc., the direction in the judgment under appeal was that the petitioner should be given the consequential benefits if she was selected in implementation of the directions in the judgment. It is aggrieved by the directions in the judgment the appellant respondent Bank has filed this writ appeal.