Mithran B. v. District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, The Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Kannur District Co-operative Bank Limited

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930** ## ## **MITHRAN. B., BHARATHI VILAS, KANNOOKKARA P.O., MADAPALLY COLLEGE (VIA), VATAKARA-2, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS** **1. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,** ## **2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED.** **3. THE KANNUR DISTRICT, CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KANNUR, REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.** **ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 1912.07 IN IA. 16618/07.** **BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.NARAYANAN,SC,KANNUR DIST.CO.OP.BA FOR R3** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE** ## **W.P.(C) NO.14086/2006** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 12.10.4 ISSUED BY THE P.S.C.** **EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET FOR WRITTEN EXAMINATION FOR THE POST OF DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER IN DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK IN KANNUR DIST.** **EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE SHORT LIST DT. 21.12.05 PUBLISHED BY THE P.S.C. FOR THE POST OF DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER IN THE DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK IN KANNUR DISTRICT.** **EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE CALL LETTER DT. 7.3.06 FOR PERSONAL INTERVIEW ISSUED BY THE P.S.C.** **EXT.P5:-COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK, KANNUR DT. 16.3.06 DULY COUNTER SIGNED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KANNUR.** **EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE RANK LIST DT. 23.3.06 FOR THE POST OF DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER IN THE DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK IN KANNUR DISTRICT.** **EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B/ESTT/2/2006-07 DT. 7.10.06 ISSUED BY THE KANNUR DIST.CO.OP.BANK LIMITED FOR PROMOTION OF THE PETITIONER AS SENIOR MANAGER.** _**/**_ **TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.** ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.14086 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of May, 2008 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner applied for being considered as Deputy General Manager in a District Co-operative Bank, on the basis of Ext.P1 notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission and appeared for selection and appointment. He along with others appeared for the written test. He alone qualified, was called for interview, but ultimately not selected. He challenges the same. 2. At the outset, I may notice that the pleadings and the grounds raised in the writ petition very fairly keeps away from making any allegation of bias, incompetence, personal malice, malafides or such vitiating elements as against the three members of the KPSC, who conducted the interview and the Presidents of the Co-operative Banks for whose benefit the interview was being conducted and who were present in terms of the rules of procedure of the KPSC. WPC.14086/06 ## Page numbers 3. The fundamental plea raised in this writ petition is that the petitioner being the sole candidate, who was successful in the written test, ought to have been selected since the performance in the interview cannot outright the result of the written test and all that could be done is to add on the marks secured in the interview to that secured in the written test. 4. Per contra, the PSC is on record with its counter affidavit. It is stated that the post to which the selection was being made is one of the top most executive posts of the DCBs and the suitability of the candidate has to be duly assessed keeping in mind all relevant factors and that the interview is available to assess the candidate's overall intellectual and personal qualities and the written test is insufficient to measure the candidates initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. WPC.14086/06 ## Page numbers 5. Obviously, the qualities stated in the counter affidavit are required for manning the post of Deputy General Manager in a Co-operative Bank, which deals with public funds and which deals with public. The question, therefore, is whether it was inappropriate or impermissible, constitutionally or statutorily, to exclude the petitioner on the basis of the interview, he having been the only candidate who was selected following the written test. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in **State Bank of Travancore** v. **Soumini** [1984 KLT 135], while the learned counsel for the KPSC relied on the decision of the Apex Court in **Lila Dhar** v. **State of Rajasthan & Others** [(1981) 4 SCC 159]. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that all that may be done is to add the marks obtained in the interview to the marks obtained in the written test and the refusal to make the selection solely on the basis of interview is wholly impermissible following the ratio of the decision in **SBT** (supra). Per contra, WPC.14086/06 ## Page numbers learned counsel appearing for the KPSC submitted that the post in hand ought to be considered following the yardsticks in **Lila Dhar** (supra) and it is impermissible to insist that selection of the petitioner ought to have been made. 7. The decision in **SBT** rendered by the Division Bench, affirming the decision in a writ petition, was in relation to the recruitment of clerks and typists in that Bank. **Lila Dhar,** which is referred to by the learned counsel for the KPSC, is referred to in **SBT** . That case relates to the recruitment of Munsiffs. It was held that the weightage of the interview fixed at 25% of the marks was arbitrary and unconstitutional on the face of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In saying so, certain other principles were also enunciated by the Apex Court. Having regard to **Peeriakaruppan** v. **State of Tamil Nadu** [AIR 1971 SC 2303] and **Ajay Hasia** v. **Khalid Mujib Sehravardi** [AIR 1981 SC 487], the Apex Court held in **Lila Dhar** and quoted in **SBT** that the written examination assesses the man's intellect and the interview tests the man himself; and WPC.14086/06 ## Page numbers “the twain shall meet” for a proper selection. It was held that while a candidate's personality is yet to develop and it would be too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance has to be attached in later life, the selection has to go with not much of a reliance on the performance in the interview and greater weight has to be given for the performance in the written test. It was, therefore, held in **Lila Dhar** that as one goes up the ladder of life and faces selection process to posts of grave importance in administration, it is essentially open to the recruiting or the selecting agency to insist on high performance in the interview also. While approving the learned Single Judge, it was laid down in **SBT** that the reasoning attached in that case was quite sound and in keeping with the spirit of the guidelines of the Supreme Court in various decisions obviously because the post, recruitment to which was being considered by this Court in SBT, was only that of a clerk-cum-cashier in that Bank. WPC.14086/06 ## Page numbers 8. The reply affidavit on record does not, in any manner, controvert the contentions of the KPSC in its counter affidavit regarding the quality of the office to which the recruitment has to be made and the requirement that was expected of a person who has to be selected to man a post of Deputy General Manager in a District Co-operative Bank, though it is attempted to be pointed out that even after the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had been promoted in the institution in which he works to higher categories in management. 9. The files in relation to the selection has been placed by the KPSC in a sealed cover for the perusal of this Court, which shows participation of three members of the PSC, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Kerala, Professor and Head of the Department of Commerce in the University of Kerala and Presidents of four District Co-operative Banks. As already noticed, no ground of personal malice, bias or malafides is pleaded. The competence of the persons who conducted the interview is beyond challenge. They were experts on the Board. WPC.14086/06 ## Page numbers The petitioner secured 2 out of 20 marks for the interview and two among the three members of the Board has specifically written that the candidate was found to be not suitable for the post. It is not within the domain of judicial review to sit in judgment on the findings of expert bodies like an Interview Board in the case in hand, except in case of clear illegality, arbitrariness, demonstrated bias, malafides etc. No such grounds are made out here. The writ petition is bound to fail. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge** kkb.