JUDGMENT
Marlapalle, J.
1. The Petitioner No. 1 is a union and
Petitioner No. 2 is an employee of the Respondent No.
1 Bank [State Bank of India] and at the relevant time
was working under the Respondent No.3. The grievance
raised in this petition pertains to the appointment of
Trainee Officers by way of promotion. On 2nd March,
1991 the Bank issued circular No. PER/KCL/of 1991
inviting applications for preparation of the list of
eligible employees for appointment as Trainee Officers
with effect from 1st August, 1991. The requirements,
like minimum service, minimum age, educational
qualifications etc., were set out in the said
circular. The Petitioner No. 2 responded and he went
through the process of selection. He appeared for the
written test held on 12th May, 1991 and he was
declared successful in the same. He was called for
viva-voce on 15th July, 1991 and he attended the same
before the interview committee. However, when the
names of successful candidates were announced he did
not find his name in the list for Trainee Officers
and, therefore, he approached this Court challenging
the validity of the selection process consequent to
the circular dated 2nd March, 1991 and prayed for
quashing the selection and directions to appoint
Petitioner No. 2 as Trainee Officer for 1992 batch.
2. The main thrust of the challenge is on the
ground that the written test held was for 150 marks
and the interview assessment was for 100 marks i.e.
40% of the total marks i.e. written test plus
interview. The objection of the petitioner is that
fixing of 40% marks for oral interview is excessive
and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court
from time to time.
3. The Respondent bank filed its reply and
opposed the petition. It has emphasised that the
selection process was undertaken as per rules and
there was nothing arbitrary or illegal in the said
selection process. The Petitioner having gone through
the selection procedure could not have turned back to
challenge the very same procedure. It is also
contended that the Petitioner was aware, right from
the time he had responded to the circular dated 2nd
March, 1991, regarding the marks fixed for written
test as well as for the interview and he did not raise
any protest either orally or in writing before the
petition was filed or before he underwent the
selection process.
4. As directed by us, the Bank has placed before
us the policy for promotion to JMGS-I and Trainee
Officers, that was existing prior to October, 1992 and
modified thereafter. The guidelines for appointment
of Trainee Officers, which were applicable to the
subject selection, indicate that in addition to the
qualifications and minimum service requirement the
selection procedure consisted of written test and
interview and also clarified that oral interview will
be only for those who qualified in the written test.
The distribution of marks for written test and
interview was (a) written test : 150 marks, (b)
interview : 100 marks. From October, 1992 onwards
this was sought to be changed to (a) written test :
160 and (b) interview : 40. It is clear that the
existing selection procedure consisted of 250 marks
whereas the revised procedure (from October, 1992)
consisted of 200 marks.
5. In the case of “Lila Dhar V/s State of
Rajasthan and others” it was
clarified that the earlier decision in the case of
“Ajay Hasia V/s Khalid Mujib Sehravardi” and “Pariakaruppan V/s State of Tamil Nadu” were the cases pertaining to admission
to colleges and the provisions for marks for interview
and written test could not be the same for admission
to colleges and entry into public services. While
dealing with the ambit of written test and oral
interview for public services, the Apex Court
observed:
“6…. … … On the other hand,
in the case of services to which recruitment
has necessarily to be made from persons of
mature personality, interview test may be
the only way, subject to basic and essential
academic and professional requirements being
satisfied. To subject such persons to a
written examination may yield unfruitful and
negative results, apart from its being an
act of cruelty to those persons. There are,
of course, many services to which
recruitment is made from younger candidates
whose personalities are on the threshold of
development and who show signs of great
promise, and the discerning may in an
interview test, catch a glimpse of the
future personality. In the case of such
services, where sound selection must combine
academic ability with personality promise,
some weight has to be given, though not much
too great weight, to the interview test.
There cannot be any rule of thumb regarding
the precise weight to be given. It must
vary from service to service according to
the requirements of the service, the minimum
qualifications prescribed, the age group
from which the selection is to be made, the
body to which the task of holding the
interview test is proposed to be entrusted
and a host of other factors. It is a matter
for determination by experts. It is a
matter for research. It is not for Courts
to pronounce upon it unless exaggerated
weight has been given with proven or obvious
oblique motives. …”
Subsequently, a four Judge Bench of the Apex
Court in the case of ” Ashok Kumar Yadav and others
etc. etc. V/s State of Haryana and others etc. etc.”
of its judgment
reiterated the observations made in Lila Dhars case
(supra).
In the case of “C.P. Kalra V/s Air India Through
its Managing Director, Bombay and others” [1994 Supp.
(1) S.C.C. 454] the Apex Court was dealing with a
similar situation like the one we have at hand. Out of
total 100 marks 60 marks were reserved for annual
performance appraisal reports and 40 marks for personal
interview as per Rule 2.6. It was contended before the
Court that fixing of 40% marks for oral interview
vitiated the selection process and the selection
process was by internal promotions. The contentions
were overruled.
6. It is not disputed that the Petitioner
underwent the selection process and decided to
challenge the same when he realised that his name was
not found in the selection list displayed by the Bank
for the post of Trainee Officer. It is well
established by now that after having gone through the
selection process, without any protest, the candidate,
who did not find his place in the selection list, has
no right to challenge the validity of selection process
and this is what exactly the Petitioner sought to do
and, therefore, his challenge has to be repelled.
7. We have examined the record and noticed that by
the impugned selection process a number of employees
were promoted and appointed to the post of Trainee
Officers but were not impleaded as a party respondent.
The selection was made about a decade ago and though
the petition was pending for more than eleven years no
steps were taken to implead any of such officers who
were likely to be affected though the Petitioner No. 1
is the union claiming to represent such officers.
Thus, the petition fails on all counts.
8.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
9. Rule discharged with no orders as to costs.
