Narinder Prakash Lath and Others vs The Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab and Sind Bank

A.L. Bahri, J.—Narinder Prakash Lath and nine others claim in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, quashing of the selection made by the Respondents to the different posts of Junior Management Grade Scale-I, being arbitrary and that the Petitioners be appointed against those posts.

The Petitioners are working as Clerks in the Punjab and Sind Bank in different branches. About 300 posts became available of Junior Management Grade Scale I. 120 posts were to be filled by promotion from the persons already working in the Bank and the remaining 180 posts were to be filled directly. Out of 120 posts to be filled by promotion, 60 were under the general category and the remaining 60 under the reserved category. The Petitioner are concerned qua general category of 60 posts. The Bank formulated a scheme instructions fixing maximum marks for the experience, qualifications and interview, respectively, 36 marks were allocated for experience in service, 25 for academic qualifications and 15 for interview total being 75. At the time of the fling of the writ petition the selection process had not completed. The criteria aforesaid was challenged.

During arguments learned Counsel for the Petitioners has challenged the selection primarily on two grounds; firstly, that for interview as many as 360 persons were called which was more than 3 times the number of vacancies to be filled in the general category, secondly, the fixation of 15 marks for interview was arbitrary as out of total 75 marks it was more than 12 percent. This writ petition has been contested by the Bank, inter alia, maintaining that due process was adopted in the matter of selection of the candidates and no rule or regulation or statute was infringed by following the scheme and calling 360 persons for interview and further making selection on the basis of 15 marks earmarked for interview. In the replication filed by the Petitioner, selection list finalised by the Bank of candidates was also filed to indicate that if marks for interview had been reduced to 12 percent of the total marks, the result was likely to be affected and the Petitioners, particularly Petitioner No. 1, would have been in the merit list of first 60 to be appointed.

The principle of arbitrariness in the matter of recruitment was discussed by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana 1985 (3) S.L.R. 200. That was a case of recruitment of candidates for appointment m Haryana Civil Services (Executive). The process of recruitment contemplated a written test to be followed by interview. It was in that context, the Supreme Court observed that the merit of the candidates in the written test could not arbitrarily be ignored by fixing excessively high marks for the interview. Keeping in view the same it was held that out of the total marks of the written test, marks for the Viva Voce should not be more (than 12 percent. It was also observed that at the time of calling the candidates for interview normally candidates, 2/3 of the number of vacancies, should be called. After hearing counsel for the parties we are of the firm view that the ratio of the decision aforesaid cannot be applied in the case of recruitment by promotion. When posts in the higher grade are to be filled by promotion, different considerations weigh. Persons already in service had gained experience and in some cases such persons may have improved their educational qualifications. The experience of service and acquiring of academic qualifications are the relevant considerations for purposes of promotion which have been fixed by the Bank. Still the Bank rightly thought fit to interview the candidates and allocated 15 marks for the same. Fixation of 15 marks for interview in the case of selection by promotion cannot be considered arbitrary; more so, when no written test is provided. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner while referring to the merit list of selected candidates produced along with the rejoinder, wanted to argue if proportionate marks are reduced for interview, some of the Petitioners might gain access to the merit list. We are afraid that this contention cannot be accepted and on that ground alone the selection made cannot be quashed. Some observations in Ashok Yadav''s case (supra) in this context may be noticed from para 19 of the judgment. After referring to the arguments and the decision of the High Court with respect to the award of the marks in Viva Voce test it was observed as under:

These figures relied upon by the Division Bench may create a suspicion in one''s mind that some element of arbitrariness might have entered the assessment in the viva voce examination. But suspicion cannot take the place of proof and we cannot strike down the selection made on the ground that the evaluation of the merits of the candidates in the viva voce examination might be arbitrary. It is necessary to point out that the Court cannot sit in judgment over the marks awarded by interviewing bodies unless it is proved or obvious that the marking is plainly and indubitably arbitrary or affected by oblique motives. It is only if the assessment is patently arbitrary or the risk of arbitrariness is so high that a reasonable person would regard arbitrariness as inevitable, that the assessment of marks at the viva voce test may be regarded as suffering from the vice of arbitrariness.

In view of what has been stated above, it is not considered appropriate to discuss in detail the argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioners as to whether the Petitioners could be in the select list if interview marks had been 10 only instead of 15. It may further be observed at this stage that the learned Counsel for the rank, from, the record of selection, has pointed out the marks awarded in the Petitioners in the interview. Petitioner No. 1 secured seven marks, Petitioners No. 2 to 4, 7 and 9, secured 12, Petitioners Nos. 5 and 6 secured 10 each, and Petitioner No. 10 secured 11 marks. This data has been given with the object of satisfying the Court that the Selection Board did not arbitrarily award marks for interview excessively on the lower side to the Petitioners or the like to purposely keep them out of selection. Likewise, reference was made to the selection list--Annexure P.4 that the persons selected also secured 7 to 13 marks and keeping in view their marks for experience and educational qualifications, they were in the merit list. We are fully satisfied in the manner of selection made in this case and it was not at all in an arbitrary manner.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has argued that 360 candidates were called for interview for 60 posts of general category which was not proper. In Ashok Yadav''s case (supra) this question was also for consideration. The persons who had secured 45 percent marks in the written test, were eligible for being called for Viva Voce test. Reference was made to Kothari Commission''s report on the subject of recruitment policy and selection methods for the Civil Services Examination and the following passage was quoted therefrom:

The number of candidates to be called for interview, in older of the total marks in written papers, should not exceed, we think twice the number of vacancies to be filled.

The Supreme Court observed:

We are, therefore, of the view that where there is a composite test consisting of a written examination followed by a viva voce test, the number of candidates to be called for interview in order of the marks obtained in the written examination, should not exceed twice or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled.

Although Haryana Public Service Commission had called for interview of candidates numbering over 1,300 who satisfied the minimum eligibility requirement by securing minimum of 45 percent marks in the written examination, the Supreme Court observed that it was not right. However, the Commission could not be said to be actuated by any mala fide or/motive as such a practice was being followed by earlier but on that ground alone the selection was not required to be quashed. In the present case no averments of mala fides have been raised against the Bank in the matter of selection made or established and thus the selection of candidates shown in Annexure P-4 cannot be quashed on this ground.

For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.