D.L. Prasuna vs Andhra Pradesh State Coop. Bank Ltd., Hyderabad and others

M.S. Liberhan, C.J.—The grievances made out by the learned Counsel for the appellant are :

(i) that the marks awarded for the Annual confidential reports were different by the Selection Committee than the Vice Chairman & Managing Director;

(ii) that the marks awarded for candidates at Sl. Nos.63 and 64 have been manipulated; consequently the selection suffers form arbitrariness; and that

(iii) awarding of marks at the rate of 15 out of 15 in an interview is arbitrary and contrary to law.

In order to appreciate the contention raised, though not pressed before the learned single Judge, we have called for the record.

We have gone through the record with the assistance of the Counsel for the parties. We find no force in submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the marks of the candidates at Sl. No.63 and 64 were tampered with, or even smudged, rubbed or in any way altered even remotely giving the impression of tampering with. We are of the considered view that it is easy to make allegations but difficult to prove. It is one of those cases wherein an unsuccessful candidate has made reckless allegations without there being any premise for the same. There is no allegation of mala fides either against the Selection Committee or the Managing Director or the Chairman except an usual sweeping allegation that there was political interference in the selection without specifying who influenced whom, when, how and for whom. Allegations of mala fides have to be averred specifically and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere apprehensions of a non-selected candidate by themselves do not render the selection arbitrary or mala fide. We may hasten to add that the selection was made by an internal committee and the written examination was conducted by an external agency. The selection was made on the basis of the marks secured in the written test, interview and the marks awarded on the annual confidential reports. A specific rule was provided for awarding service points. The award of marks for the annual confidential reports is based on a specified formula, which is nothing but a mathematical calculation. We find no error in calculating the marks on the said mathematical formula provided by the promotion policy wherein the mode to calculate the points on the basis of the confidential reports has been specifically provided, with respect to which there is no dispute between the learned Counsel for the parties. As a test check, we calculated the marks of two candidates in terms of the said formula and we find the calculation to be correct.

So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant as regards the awarding of marks in the written test viz., marks ranging from 15 to 17 out of 20 marks is concerned, we are of the opinion that such awarding of marks by itself cannot be said to be arbitrary. It is for the experts to award the marks and no motive has been attributed for the award of such marks by the marking authority, which is admittedly an external agency. Nothing has been averred in the writ petition or during the course of the arguments that the said external agency or the authority examining the written test papers was unfavorably inclined towards the appellant or the appellant was treated discriminately qua the selected respondents or that there is an error in awarding the marks. The mere securing of marks by some of the candidates ranging between 15 to 17 out of 20 marks cannot be the basis for terming the valuation as arbitrary. We have gone through the record; the marks secured by the various candidates range between 0 to 17, which shows the variation and the objective evaluation of the written test.

Lastly, the learned Counsel for the appellant eloquently and persistently contended that 15 out of 15 marks cannot be granted in an interview and the award of such marks to some, renders the selection arbitrary. We find no force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is for the experts to appreciate and judge the candidate in an interview and award marks according to his performance in the interview. There is no bar, either statutory or in the ordinary course of human conduct, debarring the candidates to secure full marks in the interview. We have gone through the selection list. One candidate at Sl.No.107, who secured 15 out of 15 marks in the interview, is placed lower than the appellant on merit and is not one of the selected candidates. Similarly, there are other candidates who have secured the maximum marks in the interview but secured less marks in the written test or in the annual confidential report etc., and were not selected. That by itself speaks volumes for the fair selection of the candidates. The interview marks show that the marks range between 3 and 15. The persons who have secured the maximum marks are few in number. We are fully satisfied, after going through the record, that the selection is fair and no inference of arbitrariness can be had.

Lastly but not lastly, if the concerned authorities correct a clerical mistake in the number of marks secured (as was done in the case of the candidates at Sl.Nos.63 and 64) and make the persons eligible for appointment, that will not lead to an inference that their marks have been tampered with or their selection has been made on political influence in the absence of any specific allegation it is wrong to attribute any motive to any particular person in the hierarchy of the Selection Committee or the appointing authority. On a perusal of the record, it is clearly discernible that it was purely on a technical error that the appointment was not given to two candidates and after the mistake was set right, that appointments were given to the said two candidates. That by itself will not give a right to an unsuccessful candidate to impugn the entire selection as unfair.

We may add at this stage that the appellant has challenged the selection as well as the confirmation in WP No.4692 of 1994. The writ petition was dismissed and the appellant has not challenged the said order and the selection attained finality. In collateral proceedings, the appellant cannot challenge the same selection. There cannot be two contradictory orders for the same selection. Contradictory decisions would result in ridiculous refills and draconian rule of law. In view of the observations made above, we find no force in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed al Rs.2.000/-