Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioner is a clerk at the Indian Overseas Bank selected through Banking Service Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as, ''BSRB'') in the year 1987. The petitioner holds a B.A degree and had completed 26 years of service with the Bank at the time of filing this Writ Petition. The petitioner is aggrieved at his non selection as Special Clerk Assistant during the vacancy year 2011. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the weightage points earned by him on account of educational qualification and length of service was overlooked in the selection process. The petitioner also alleges that even candidates with SSLC and HSC qualifications found their names in the said selection list. It was also averred that the candidates who got recruited as peons and sub staff, and later confirmed as Clerks, also found their names in the selection list.

515. They had also distinguished the Ajay Hasia decision by relying on the case of Lila Dhar Vs State of Rajastan and others reported in 1981 (4) SCC 159.

7. Heard the counsels. Perused the records. The petitioner is a graduate recruited to the Indian Overseas Bank in the year 1987 through BSRB. The petitioner had since retired. While selecting Special Clerk Assistants pertaining to the vacancy year 2011, the petitioner's name was not cleared while persons who are his juniors in service and persons recruited as peons and sub staff and later confirmed as clerks, got cleared. The petitioner is aggrieved at not finding his name in the http://www.judis.nic.in selection list, has preferred this Writ Petition. The petitioner had alleged bias against him. The petitioner had challenged the very process of selection of solely weighing on the performance in the interview relying on the Ajay Hasia Case. The file concerning the process of selection of Special Clerk Assistants was summoned from the respondents and perused. Perusal of the file indicated that candidates for interview were short listed on the basis of the weightage points of the clerks employed with them. Candidates, twice the number of vacancies were called to attend the interview. A Rank list on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview was prepared and the top ten candidates in the rank list were selected and cleared for posting as Special Clerk Assistants. As such, the selection of Special Clerk Assistants was made strictly on the basis of the performance of the short listed candidates in the interview. The petitioner had scored 7 marks out of 20, whereas, the selected candidates scored 8.5 marks and above out of 20. As such, the process followed by the respondents for selecting the candidates for Special Clerk Assistants is found to be in accordance with the settlement dated 23.10.2002 agreed between the Bank and the Union under the http://www.judis.nic.in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the circumstances of the present case, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Lila Dhar Case with reference to the effect of settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the reliance of interview in matters of selections and the references to the decision of Ajay Hasia Case squarely apply to the petitioner's case. Similarly, the decisions relied by them in the case of LIC of India Vs DJ Bahadur and others reported in 1981 (1) LLJ 1 and K.K.Nagamani Vs Indian Airlines and others reported in 2009 (5) SCC 515, support the case of the respondents. There is no second opinion that the settlement dated 23.10.2002 is binding on the petitioner and the respondents. The sole contention of the petitioner regarding the settlement dated 23.10.2002 that the cut off marks or the total marks in interview is not part of the settlement, is neither reasonable nor tenable. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that there is no infirmity in the process followed for finalizing the selection list.

8. As for the allegation of bias made by the petitioner against the respondents, I find that the same is vague as no mens rea or mala http://www.judis.nic.in fide is attributed on the part of the respondents. But the perception that how less qualified juniors with entries as peons and sub staff can score better in an interview over a graduate having recruited through competitive exams/interviews conducted by BSRB is reasonable. But that is not reason enough to allege bias and therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. What transpired in the interview is not available on records. In the absence of the records of interview, the test of transparency and fairness is not possible. Therefore, this Court has no options but to trust the integrity of the selection committee. It is for the stake holders in the settlement to sit and address this issue of transparency in conducting the interviews by agreeing to constitute a bigger selection committee or video record interviews or making the interviews objective.