ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
The petitioner is a member of the 1st respondent-Bank. He filed the Writ Petition challenging the selection process initiated by the Bank to fill up the post of Attenders and Peons. The learned Single Judge having dismissed the Writ Petition, this appeal is filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7.
3. First of all, the appellant is only a member of the Bank. He was neither an applicant nor a candidate for the posts in question. Therefore, we have considerable doubt about the locus standi of the appellant to have maintained the Writ Petition itself.
4. Be that as it may, the appellant's allegation was that persons are handpicked for appointment and that graduates are being appointed in order to pave way for their promotion to higher posts. The learned Single Judge on examination found that there was no prohibition in the rules or bye-laws of the Bank preventing consideration of graduates for W.A.No.1696/14 -2-
the posts in question. Insofar as the allegation that candidates were already chosen by the Bank is concerned, though it is true that despite minor variations in the names, three persons mentioned in Exhibit P2 complaint of the appellant figured in the ranked list, there is no other allegations which could vitiate their recruitment. Therefore, the mere accidental coincidence of these three persons figuring in the ranked list, which could be on their own merit, cannot lead to the invalidation of the selection process.
5. In such circumstances, we do not think that this by itself could be treated as a ground for cancelling the selection as sought for by the appellant.
6. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere.
The Writ Appeal is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE