The petitioners in both the writ petitions are members of the respondent Society, who allege nepotism, in the selection conducted by the respondent Bank, to the post of three Attenders and two peons. The allegation raised in both the writ petitions are that the respondent Bank through its Manging Committee had hand-picked persons from the applicants, for appointment to the posts, so as to favour them in the selection. It is also alleged that the respondent Bank had chosen specific candidates, with higher qualification of graduation so as to facilitate further promotion in the respondent Bank. Both the petitioners had filed complaints before the Joint Registrar, which according to them had identified the persons, who were hand-picked by the Managing Committee of the respondent Bank. The allegation in the complaints have now been proved, by the rank list published, is the specific contention. 2. W.P(C) No.14666/2014 was filed even before the selection had concluded; wherein Ext.P3 complaint was made against the respondents 4 to 8, originally impleaded as the persons hand-picked for appointment. Obviously, none of these names figured eventually in the selection list. It was subsequently that W.P(C) No.20431/2014 was filed on 06.08.2014 impleading respondents 4 to 9. Respondents 4 to 6, therein were the first three rank holders in the rank list of Attenders. The 8th respondent is the first rank holder in the rank list for Peons in the general vacancy and the 9th respondent is the first rank holder in the rank list for peons which post was reserved to the physically handicapped persons. Amendments were sought in the earlier writ petition also, correcting the name and address of respondents 4 to 7 and impleading additionally respondents 9 to 11.
3. With respect to W.P(C) NO.14666/2014, it is to be specifically noticed that the complaint filed, as also the writ petition does not disclose the name of the persons who were, in fact, appointed. Five persons referred to in the complaint and impleaded originally in the writ petition, obviously, are not the persons selected. Only similarity in name is discernible with respect to one of the respondents, originally impleaded; being the 5th respondent. The complaint as per Ext.P3 in that writ petition, was also considered by the Joint Registrar and orders passed as evidenced by Ext.P6, produced in W.P(C) No.20431/2014.
4. With respect to the contention as to the appointment of persons with higher qualifications, the Joint Registrar rightly found that in the context of there being no specific restriction and the minimum qualification prescribed being only pass in VII standard, there could be no illegality or impropriety found thereon. There is no restriction as per the Act and Rules, in the candidates with higher qualification, appearing and contesting in the selection process as also being appointed, on being selected. One additional aspect which has to be noticed is the qualification of persons, who had actually appeared for the selection, the records of which were made available by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank. From the candidates who applied for the Attender post, except for 8 candidates among 29 who appeared for the written examination and interview, all were graduates and there were even post graduates who had applied and appeared in the selection process. As to the post of Peon, most of the candidates were Secondary Leaving Certificate holders and the 8th respondent who was selected in the general category was also a SSLC holder. The 9th respondent who was selected in the category of physically handicapped, to the post of Peon, had the qualification of B.Com(Co-operation). The contentions with respect to the candidates having higher qualifications being hand-picked, from among the candidates fail. The candidates who had appeared for the selection were mostly graduates and of the balance few; most of them were SSLC holders.
5. The further contention raised by the petitioner in W.P(C)20431/2014 is as to the said petitioner having pointed out the specific candidates who were selected even before the interview was conducted. The learned counsel would specifically refer to the complaint filed as per Ext.P3, in the said writ petition, before the Joint Registrar which is said to be dated 19.07.2014.
6. The learned Government Pleader on instruction, submits that such a complaint was received. But, however, the date of such receipt is not clear. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner takes me through Ext.P5 acknowledgment card, wherein the Joint Registrar is seen to have acknowledged the receipt of the letter on 19.07.2014 itself. A registered postal article which is said to have been posted on 19.07.2014 would not be normally delivered on the same day and this raises serious apprehensions about the acknowledgment being with respect to Ext.P3 complaint itself.
7. In any event, the mere fact that the persons who were selected are referred to in Ext.P3, does not by itself vitiate the selection as such. From the records produced, specifically the ranking of candidates, in accordance with their marks, none of the persons who are selected and who figured high in the rank list, were so ranked merely by virtue of their marks in the interview. It is very clear from the rank list that these persons had secured the highest marks in the written examination also and even giving a complete go by to the interview marks; the respondents 4 to 6 and 8 and 9 would retain their position in the rank list. The highest marks awarded for interview is also only 15 out of the total marks of 100.
8. But for merely asserting that the party respondents were hand-picked, there is absolutely no material produced as to why these persons were favoured or any allegation made against any of the managing committee members, as having resorted to such nepotism on the basis of any relationship with the candidates selected or for reason of any illegality gratification. Both the writ petitions raise grounds of malafides and accuse the President and the Director Board members of nepotism. However, none have been impleaded in their personal capacity. It is trite that malafides cannot be found on mere assertion and based on probabilities. What the petitioners urge is that on the sole ground of their identifying the selected candidates; prior to the publication of results, the selection ought to be set aside. This Court cannot merely on such presumption, without any sustainable legal ground, invoke the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For all the above reasons, this Court does not find any reason why the selection should be set aside. The complaints filed are found to be ill motived and remain unsubstantiated before this Court too. Writ petitions stand dismissed. Parties to suffer their costs.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge