HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.637 of 2022
ORDER :
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the following relief:-
"...to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in changing the criteria of selection in the recruitment conducted to the post of Staff Assistants/Clerks vide Notification date:17.06.2019 and not selecting the petitioner though she had obtained higher marks than the last selected candidate under the Physically Challenged category as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles, 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further declare that the petitioner is entitled for selection to the post of Staff Assistant/Clerk by virtue of her merit obtained in the selection and pass such other order or orders......."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent
has issued notification dated 17.06.2019 to fill up 71
vacancies of Staff Assistant/Clerk, out of 71, 14 vacancies
are meant to be filled in by in-service candidates and
remaining 57 to be filled up by Direct recruitment and as
per the notification, the qualification required for the post is
a Graduation and one must possess knowledge of English
and proficiency in Telugu. It is further stated that as per 2
the terms of the said notification, 100 marks are meant for
On-line test and 25 marks for interview and total marks
being 125. Accordingly, the petitioner has appeared for
written test vide Hall ticket No.1110002858 and she had
secured 57.5 marks. Thereafter, the respondent has
conducted interviews by calling the candidates @ 1:4, which
are scheduled from 23rd to 28th September, 2019. After
completion of interviews, the 2nd respondent has published a
final selection list of candidates category-wise. The
petitioner obtained rank No.180 in the merit list.
As could be seen from the ranking list, two candidates
at items 52 and 55 got lower rank i.e., 181 and 222 than the
petitioner (180). As per the marks that were notified, the
petitioner had secured 58.75 (out of 100) in written test and
10 marks in interview, totaling 68.75 with Rank 180. The
petitioner understands that though she stood No.4 among
the Physically Challenged persons, for the reasons unknown
to her, she could not get through the selection. When
enquired with the office of the 2nd respondent, she was
informed that the respondents are still verifying the
selections and on verification, the petitioner will be selected 3
and appointed after eliminating the candidates who are less
meritorious to the petitioner and also in the vacancies that
will arise due to relinquishment of selected candidates. She
was also informed that her name is kept in the waiting list
and her case will be considered at the appropriate time and
she was informed that wailing list will be operated till the
end of December 2021. Thereafter, when certain
information had been sought for under Right to Information
Act on behalf of the petitioner, it was informed by letter
dated 14.10.2021 that the information need not be provided
as exempted by the judgment of the Apex Court in respect of
application of RTI Act to the Cooperative Societies.
Subsequently, while the petitioner is awaiting for her turn
having been placed in the waiting list, she reliably learnt
that the 2nd respondent has introduced a new criteria at the
time of final selection where under, the candidates with Post
Graduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA) were
given preference giving a go-bye to the marks secured in the
written test and interview together and she also learnt that
several candidates have produced fake and fabricated
certificates of PGDCA. Hence, questioning the action of the 4
respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent
denying all the averments made in the petition and
contended that the respondent bank has not allotted any
Rank to the qualified candidates for the interview. As per
the norms, the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
(IBPS) has sent merit list to this respondent bank without
any marks in 1:4 ratio and they were qualified for interview.
The list was sent by IBPS, Mumbai only with serial
numbers. The respondent Bank will conduct interviews and
send the interview marks to the IBPS, Mumbai. The final
selected list will be displayed by IBPS, Mumbai only after
approval of the Board of Management. It is submitted that
there is no truth in the allegations made by the petitioner to
the effect that the petitioner's case will be selected and
appointed in the vacancies that will arise due to
relinquishment of selected candidates. In this regard, the
respondent bank has not given any assurance to the
petitioner at any point of time. As per the procedure in
vogue, this respondent bank will fill the vacancies, which 5
have arisen as per the roaster and as per the merit list
available in the waiting list in the said roaster.
It is further stated that, it was clearly mentioned that
,final selection will be on the basis of the raking accorded,
after adding the marks obtained in the online test and
interview. Further the Person In-charge of the Bank has
categorized the interview marks of 25 as under:
S.No. Attributes/Traits Clerical/Staff
Assistants
1 Academic Distinction
Above 60% 5 Marks
Above 75% 5 Marks
2 Experience One mark for every
year service with
maximum 5 marks
3 Additional Qualification in 5 marks
Computer/ Technical Skills
4 General Awareness/ Personality/ 5 marks
Leadership qualities
Total Marks 25
Therefore, the respondent bank has not violated any
norms as per the notification. Further, it is stated that the
allegation made by the petitioner that the respondent bank 6
has recently appointed 23 candidates who were kept in the
waiting list preferring those who have submitted PGDCA
certificates in an unfair way is untrue and in correct. All the
candidates shortlisted in the first list and further merit lists
were considered for recruitment abased on the rules
prescribed by the IBPS and this respondent bank. Hence,
this respondent bank has not indulged in any illegal process
in the selection of the candidates and therefore prayed to
dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner land learned
Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the
respondents.
5. On hearing, this Court observed that, in the
notification the eligibility criteria fixed is with regard to the
age i.e., minimum age is 18 years and maximum age is 31
years as on 31.03.2019 and the educational qualification is
a Graduation of a recognized University and knowledge of
English and proficiency in local language (Telugu) is
essential. Moreover, nowhere in the notification it is stated
that the candidates with PGDCA will be given preference 7
over the candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications
under paragraph 3(A)(iii).. therefore, it can be seen that the
respondent has changed the criteria of selection at the time
of final selection after the written test and interviews were
conducted. Therefore the action of the respondent is wholly
impermissible under law.
6. In a case of K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "Rules
of the Game cannot be changed once the Game is played"
and the same was also held in the subsequent judgments.
In view of the above, the action of the respondent is contrary
to the settled proposition of law laid down in the above
judgments cited supra.
7. It is also observed that, at the relevant paragraph 4
of the notification, it is clearly stated that "Final selection
will be on the basis of the ranking accorded, after adding the
marks obtained in the on-line test and interview." Therefore
it can be seen that giving preference to persons with PGDCA
without any such condition in the notification is illegal and
arbitrary.
1 2008 (3) SCC 512 8
8. Apart from that, in a case of Sachin Kumar Vs.
Delhi State & Subordinate Service Board and others2,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when unfair
methods are adopted and the selection was completed, such
selection/recruitment was ordered to be cancelled on the
ground that the selection process is lacking fair procedure.
The present case on hand is similar to the circumstances.
The endeavour of the petitioner is only to secure
employment based on the merit obtained by her in the
recruitment. However, the respondents had been kept on
promising the petitioner about providing employment by
keeping her in the waiting list but have not kept their
promise and went on filing up the posts notified, by
candidates possessing PGDCA qualification, that too with
fake and fabricated documents. Therefore, viewed from any
angle, the action of the respondents in making selection by
changing the rules of notification is illegal and arbitrary.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and in view of the citations referred to above, this
Court is of the considered view that the action of the 2nd
2 (2021) 4 SC 631 9
respondent in changing the criteria of selection in the
recruitment conducted to the post of Staff Assistants/Clerks
vide Notification dated 17.06.2019 and not selecting the
petitioner though she had obtained higher marks than the
last selected candidate under the Physically Challenged
category declared as illegal and arbitrary. The 2nd
respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioenr
as per her entitlement basing on the selection to the post of
Staff Assistant/ Clerk by virtue of her merit obtained in the
selection.
10. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is
disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : -10-2022
Gvl
10
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.637 of 2022
Date : .10.2022
Gvl
