Sreeja.C.S vs State Bank Of Travancore
2021 Latest Caselaw 17876 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
   WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 1951 OF 2014
PETITIONER:

          SREEJA.C.S.
          W/O.PEETHAMBARAN, ARAMKUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, RAJAKUMARI
          (P.O.), IDUKKI - 685 619.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.DENU JOSEPH
          SRI.LALBIND.M.M.



RESPONDENT:

    1     STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
          ZONAL OFFICE ERNAKULAM, SBT BHAVAN, PANAMBILLY NAGAR,
          ERNAKULAM - 682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL
          MANAGER.

    2     THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
          RAJAKUMARI BRANCH, RAJAKUMARI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT,
          PIN: 685 619. REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER.

    3     SMT.SHAILA ROY
          ALACKAKUDY, RAJAKUMARI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN: 685
          619.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
          SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)NO.1951/2014                         2




                                   JUDGMENT

The first respondent, erstwhile State Bank of Travancore, Zonal

Office, Ernakulam, issued Ext.P1 notification calling upon the candidates, for

filing up the vacancies of maintenance staff(part time sweeper) in Ernakulam

and Idukki District. Petitioner responded by Ext.P2 application. In the

application she claimed that she was a Hindu Ezhava belonging to other

backward community. .She also claimed that she had experience in working in

the SB, Rajakumari Branch. Ext.P3 is the caste certificate produced by her

dated 18/9/2009. Pursuant to it, the bank conducted an interview and

shortlisted 12 candidates from Ext.P8 selected candidate list. Petitioner was

not selected. Hence, the petitioner approached this court claiming that the

process of selection was not transparent and that the process of selection was

bad.

2. The first and second respondents have filed separate statements

followed by counter affidavits. 3rd respondent is the candidate selected to the

post of part time sweeper, at Rajakumari Branch.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the counter affidavits as

well as the statements, contended that application of the petitioner seems to

have not been considered on a premise that her caste certificate was obsolete

and certificate evidencing her experience was not attached. According to the

learned counsel, petitioner belonged to OBC evidenced by Ext.P3 and the fact

that she was engaged in Rajakumari Branch was born out from the records of

the bank itself, which could not be disputed by the respondents. It was

contended that the rank list was not published and that the petitioner was not

intimated about the non selection. Pointing out few factual discrepancies in

the datas found in the reply given under the RT Act, with the writ petition,

statements and the counter affidavits filed by the first and the second

respondents, learned counsel contended that they disclose the lack of

transparency in the selection process.

4. In the counter affidavits it was asserted that, the petitioner has not

produced any document to prove her claim of experience. It is pertinent to

note that Ext.P1 notification was issued from the zonal office and the

application was also processed by the zonal office. Interview was held by

four members who were the representatives of the various categories of

senior officers. It is a fact that experience certificate of the candidate was not

produced. Hence, it cannot be explicit that the experience of the candidate will

be known to them. It is also pertinent to note that there is nothing on record to

show that the process of selection was not transparent or that members of the

Board were actuated by mala fides. Petitioner has no such a case that any of

the guidelines fixed by the first respondent bank was violated in the selection

process. Merely on the basis of discrepancies in factual aspect, that too, in

relation to those things that occurred after the selection process, I am not

inclined to arrive at a conclusion that the selection process was bad. It is also

on record that the rank list was published in the notice board of the bank.

Having considered the above, I find no reason to interfere in the

selection process. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

Judge

dpk

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1951/2014

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 19-1012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1.

EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 22/12/12 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 18/9/2009 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

EXT.P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER NO.DGM/EKM/PER/PTS/F/13/4 DATED 22/07/13 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16/1/2014 SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF RESPONDENT NO.2

EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5/2/2014 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK

EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 5/2/2014 SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.

EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPLY NO.DGM/EKM/RTI/2153 DATED 3/3/2014 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.

EXT.P9: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15/3/2014 SUBMITTED TO THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES.

EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 20/3/2014 ISSUED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES.