Neethu U.R. v State Bank of Travancore

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/7TH BHADRA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 8335 of 2014 (N)** **---------------------------** **PETITIONER :** ## **NEETHU U.R, W/O. VIBISH K.V., KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, P.O. EDAMUTTAM, THRISSUR - 680 568.** **BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ** **RESPONDENTS :** **1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.** **2. GENERAL MANAGER (HR) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P&HR) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012.** ## **BY SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-08-2014, ALONG WITH WPC. 8429/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** ## **WP(C).No. 8335 of 2014 (N)** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE.** **EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 01/08/2006 ISSUED BY THE STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA** **EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COY OF THE SHORT LIST.** **EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER DATED 05/03/2014. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT 26/3/2014 IN WPC NO. 8429/2014** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.** **---------------------------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **bp** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** ## **C.R** **---------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C) Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733, 13734, 14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014** **--------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of August, 2014.** ## **JUDGMENT** Denial of the chance to be interviewed and selected for the post of 'Peon' notified by the respondent Bank, despite coming out successful in the written examination, allegedly for the reason that the petitioners are 'over qualified' and not possessing the requisite qualification as per the notification, is the subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions. For convenience of reference, W.P.(C). No. 8429 of 2014 is treated as the lead case and the pleadings and proceedings are referred to as given therein. 2. The respondent Bank, on analysis of their man power requirement and the huge deficit in the category of Peons in various States, found it extremely necessary to fill up such vacancies from eligible candidates, to meet the organisational interest. It was accordingly, that Ext.P1 was issued on 14.09.2013 notifying a total of 761 vacancies of Peons in _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **2** different Districts in the State of Kerala, along with vacancies notified for other States as well. 3. As per Ext.P1 notification, applications were invited from eligible candidates, to be submitted online, however, giving an option to satisfy the 'fees' either online or off-line as provided. As per paragraph '3' of Ext.P1 notification, the basic qualification as on 1.1.2013 is to have a 10th standard pass, making it clear that the candidates should not have passed Class 12 or equivalent. The other requirement mentioned in paragraph '4' was, knowledge to read and write in local language. It was also stipulated as per paragraph '6' that, a notarized affidavit to the extent that the candidate does not possess the educational qualification of 12[th] standard or above would be produced at the time of interview. 4. The case of the petitioners is that, they have passed 10[th] standard and have not passed 12[th] standard, though they have _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **3** some other technical/training qualifications such as ITC/ITI/ Diploma as the case may be, based on their basic qualification as SSLC. Since the technical/training qualification was never equivalent to the 12[th] standard, they satisfied the requisite qualification notified in Ext.P1 and hence applied for the post as borne by applications like Ext.P2. 5. The written test was conducted on 24.11.2013 and all the petitioners came out successful in the test. Accordingly, they were called for interview and Ext.P3 call letter was issued informing them to be present with all the relevant records/ documents. It was also stipulated that, a notarized affidavit regarding the educational qualification should also be produced, in the format available in the Bank's Website. The petitioners submitted the requisite affidavit in the prescribed format as given in the Website of the Bank, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P4. _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **4** 6. Going by the contents of Ext.P4 affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners were aware of the eligibility criteria that the candidates for the post shall pass 10[th] standard and shall not pass Class 12 or its equivalent. The interview was held on different dates, viz. 12.3.2014 and 13.3.2014. Petitioners appeared for the interview with all the relevant records. But on the verification of the records, they were given to understand that, they would not be interviewed as they are 'over qualified', having possessed ITC/ITI/Diploma. Though the position was sought to be explained then and there, followed by subsequent representations, the same did not turn to be fruitful and hence these writ petitions. 7. When some of the cases had come up before this Court, an interim order was passed, directing the respondent Bank to provisionally interview the concerned petitioners; simultaneously making it clear that the result of the interview, as far as the petitioners were concerned, shall not be published without _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **5** ## obtaining further orders from this Court. 8. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit mainly contending that all the petitioners are ITC/ITI/Diploma holders and as such, their qualifications are in excess of those prescribed in Ext.P1 notification. It is also stated that, merely for the reason that they have passed the written test or that they have been called for interview, it will not confer any vested right upon them to be selected and appointed, as made clear in Ext.P1 notification itself. It is added that the written test was conducted on the basis of applications received i.e., without any scrutiny of age, qualification or such other traits and that the verification was to be done only at the time of the interview, when the originals were to be produced to substantiate the facts and figures. 9. It is pointed out that the Director of Technical Education, State of Kerala, vide letter dated 11.3.2014 [Ext.R1(a)], had clarified that 'Class 12' could not be considered to be equivalent **6** _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ to ITC/ITI or Diploma, as the former was an 'Academic qualification' whereas the latter was a 'Technical qualification', to be acquired after the 10[th] standard or 12[th] standard, as the case may be and hence a 'higher qualification'. The version of the respondent Bank is that, the qualification for the post should be minimal, as over qualified candidates may take up the position temporarily, just in order to obtain experience and will leave the job on getting better employment. It is contended that the Bank has got every right to fix the minimum and maximum qualification for the post in question, depending upon the different 'job specification' and the need of the organization. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision rendered by the Andhra High Court _**1995 (2) ALT 358 (Papanna Vs. The Personnel Manager, State Bank)**_ , _**1983 (3) SLR 141 (FB) (State of Haryana and another)**_ by the Punjab and Haryana High Court etc. Referring to the verdict passed by the Apex Court _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **7** in _**1994 (2) LLJ 888 (Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A Unnikrishnan and Another)**_ , it is stated that over qualification is certainly a disqualification. The Bank contends that the qualifications possessed by the petitioners were higher than 10[th] standard and that they were not eligible for consideration for the post of Peon in terms of Ext.P1 notification 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank in detail. 11. It is settled law, that, it is the prerogative of the employer to conduct 'job evaluation' and to have the 'job specification', fixing appropriate qualifications in respect of the different posts, depending upon the needs/duties attached to the post. It is also true, that there is nothing wrong in fixing the minimum and maximum qualification, depending upon the job requirements and organizational interest, within the permissible parameters. Having fixed the basic qualification as '10th standard _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **8** passed', but should not have passed 12th standard, vide Ext.P1 notification, the question is whether such candidates who have passed 10[th] standard and not passed 12[th] standard could be pushed out from the zone of consideration, if they are having some other qualifications which are not mentioned in Ext.P1 notification. Admittedly, Ext.P1 notification does not say that the candidates should not have any other qualification. The intent behind the notification is sought to be explained from the part of the Bank, pointing out that it is for keeping the folk appointed to Class IV/Subordinate category to be readily available at all times. 12. With regard to the rival contentions raised from either side and the applicability of the decisions cited across the Bar: **W.A. No. 689 of 2005(DB)** pertains to a case where the stipulated qualification for appointment to the post of 'Masdoor' in the Kerala State Electricity Board was a “pass in 4th standard, but should not have passed 10th standard”. The claim of the **9** _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ petitioners in the writ petition who had admittedly passed the 10[th] standard was repelled by the learned Single Judge, which was affirmed by the Division Bench as per judgment in the above W.A.No. 689 of 2005. It, as such, is not applicable to the cases in hand. 13. In the decision reported in _**2010 (1) KHC 95 (Minimol**_ _**K.G. V. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady and others)**_ cited from the part of the Bank, it was a case where, the concerned University sought to effect recruitment to the post of Class IV employees. As per the notification, the educational qualification prescribed was “ability to read and write”. The petitioners therein were refused to be interviewed, for the reason that they had passed Pre-Degree examination. Interference was declined by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition; which was challenged by way of W.A No. 1117/07 and connected cases. The intention of the University in _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **10** prescribing lower qualification was explained in the affidavit, that it was for giving opportunity in public employment to persons who possessed lesser or no educational qualification and that it has been so laid down in the schedule to the University statutes. The said stand was upheld, referring to the intention behind the stipulation, as given in paragraph '7' of the judgment and accordingly, interference was declined and the appeals were dismissed. 14. In the decision reported in _**2003 (3) SCC 541 (PM Latha & Another v. State of Kerala and Others)**_ , the Apex Court observed that the qualification prescribed for the post of 'Lower Primary/Upper Primary teachers' in the Government Schools was a “ **pass in TTC** ”. But instead of selecting TTC holders, persons holding 'B.Ed' were selected, considering B.Ed as higher qualification than TTC. After detailed analysis of the relevant provisions of law, the Apex Court held that the _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **11** intervention made by the Division Bench of Haryana High Court, while granting relief on equity to the B.Ed Degree holders (who were not qualified in view of the specific stipulation of qualification as 'TTC', as given in notification) failed to redress the injustice caused to the qualified TTC holders. It was held that, the finding that B.Ed qualification was a higher qualification than TTC was not correct, as they were having scope and application at different levels. 15. It is for the employer/Management to prescribe the desired qualification to hold the post, depending upon the nature of duties to be performed. This is part of the job analysis/job requirements/job specification. Coming to the instant case, the qualification prescribed for the post of 'Peon' was “ _**pass in 10[th] Standard, but should not have passed the 12[th] Standard**_ ” and nothing more. Nowhere in the notification, was it ever mentioned, that the aspirants shall not have any other _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **12** qualification. The wordings in the notification are very relevant since the 'equivalence' mentioned is with reference to the question whether the Certificate/Diploma/Training qualification obtained by the petitioners if at all any, could be treated as equivalent to the notified qualification. This can only be answered in the 'negative', more so, in view of the Certificate issued by the Director of Technical Education; a copy of which has been produced from the part of the respondent Bank itself as Ext. R2 (a). 16. Now coming to the question whether, the so called qualification stated as possessed by the petitioners, is a 'Higher qualification' or 'Equivalent qualification', it is also to be noted that these qualifications were obtained by the petitioners only on the basis of the base qualification of 10[th] Standard and never on the basis of the 12[th] Standard. There is no case for the respondent Bank that, the petitioners have passed the 12[th] _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **13** Standard or equivalent examination. To what extent, the eligible candidates could have acquired any other qualification, has necessarily to be considered, analysed and examined in the light of the notification, which insists to submit application **only by way of 'On-line' registration** . 'Off line' mode is prescribed as an alternative, only in respect of payment of fees. Some of the stipulations in Ext.P1 notification, as to the requirement to be satisfied by the candidates are very relevant, which hence are extracted below in Chronological order: - _“Clause 11- All eligible candidates should apply on-line before the last date for registration of application._ - _Clause 13- Candidates should download their call letter by entering his/her registration number and password/date of birth, after 11.11.2013 from Bank's website. No hard copy of the call letter/booklet will be sent by post._ - _Clause 16-_ _**How to Apply:** GUIDELINES FOR FILLING ONLINE APPLICATION: Candidates should have valid e-mail ID. This will help him/her in getting call letter/interview advices etc. by e-mail._ ## _**OPTION:PAYMENT OF FEE (OFFLINE/ONLINE):**_ _- Option I Offline_ - _(i) Candidates should first scan their photograph and signature as detailed under guidelines for scanning the photograph and signature._ _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **14** - _(ii) Candidates to visit Bank's website www. statebankoftravancore.com and open the appropriate Online Application. Format given under “Recruitment Link”._ - _(iii) Candidates are advised to fill the application carefully. In the event of the candidate not able to fill the data in one go, he can save the data already entered. When the data is saved, a provisional registration number and password will be generated by the system and displayed on the screen. Candidate should note down the registration number and password. They can reopen the saved data using registration number and password and edit the particulars, if needed. This facility will be available for three times only. Once the application is filled complete, candidate should submit the data. Candidates to take a printout of the system generated fee payment challan immediately. No change/edit will be allowed thereafter. The registration at this stage is provisional._ - _(iv)_ _**Fee payment** : Fee payment will be accepted from 2[nd] working day after registration and can be made within three working days at any branch of State Bank of Travancore. System generated fee payment challan will be used for depositing fee. Once fee is paid, the registration process is completed._ - _(v) Candidate will receive registration confirmation by SMS/ e-mail after THREE working days from the date of payment of fees. Candidate must ensure to furnish correct Mobile number/e-mail address to receive the registration confirmation._ ## _**- Option II: Online payment**_ _2. After ensuring the correctness of the particulars of the application form candidates are required to pay fees through the payment gateway integrated with the application, following the instructions available on the screen._ _**No change/edit will be allowed thereafter.**_ _**Clause 16(a)-GUIDELINES FOR SCANNING THE**_ _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **15** ## _**PHOTOGRAPH & SIGNATURE**_ _Before applying online a candidate will be required to have a scanned (digital) image of his/her photograph and signature as per the specifications given in Annexure-I. Clause 17-Your Online Application will not be registered unless you upload your photo and signature as specified._ - _Clause 19.(iv)-_ _**Applicants are advised to register online themselves** .”_ The stipulations extracted above clearly give an idea that, unless a person is well versed with computer application, he/she will not be in a position to prefer a proper and valid application to contest for the selection. This is more so when, it is insisted as - per Ext.P1 that the applicants are to register on line themselves, virtually disabling them from availing the service of anybody else or such other centers catering to such service. 17. Then, the next question to be considered is whether the elementary education provided to students up to the 10[th] or 12[th] Standard takes in computer studies/application as well, as a subject, forming part of the curriculum, which in fact is not. This _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **16** means, it can be acquired only by way of some other course to be pursued, which may be a Certificate course or Diploma course, or at such other level. If a candidate joins for such course to equip himself, he may successfully complete the said course obtaining a certificate or may even fail. If a person succeeds in the course and obtains a Certificate or Diploma and submits a valid application 'on-line' as required in Ext.P1, the next moment, there is a chance for being disqualified, stating that he is overqualified and hence his candidature cannot be considered. If the proposition now mooted by the Bank is accepted and the wordings in the notification are interpreted to such extent, it has to be presumed that the Bank is only preferring the “drop-outs”, which may not be the intention of the Bank. 18. Pursuant to the query raised by this Court on the previous occasion, a statement dated 29.08.2014 has been filed by the learned counsel for the respondents as to the particulars _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **17** of vacancies, the number of candidates responded and the details of those who came out successful. For convenience of reference, it is extracted below: _“1. This statement is being filed as directed by this Honourable court._ _2. It is submitted that the Bank had initiated steps to fill up a total of 1030 vacancies as per Exhibit P-1 notification._ _3. 86118 persons had responded to Exhibit P-1._ _4. 57037 had appeared for the written examination conducted at various centres._ _5. 565 candidates had been successful in the written statement._ _6. Only 288 candidates appeared for the interview._ _7. 121 candidates had been successful in the interview and were included in the select list.”_ From the above, it is clear that, in spite of the organisational requirement of 1030 vacancies notified as per Ext.P1, only 565 candidates (out of 57037 who appeared for the examination), succeeded in the written test, ie. less than 1%. Among the 565, who succeeded in the written test, only 288 appeared for interview, from whom, only 121 candidates have been selected and included in the select list. Persons like the _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **18** petitioners have been left out from being considered for the reason that, they possess higher qualification than the requisite extent as specified in Ext.P1. 19. In this context, it is relevant to note, as pointed out by the petitioners, that there was no doubt in the minds of the respondent Bank as to the eligibility and the qualification of the petitioners earlier and it was accordingly, that they were called for the written test and interview. It is true that, there is a clause in the notification itself, to the effect that, merely by calling for the written test/interview, it does not mean that the Bank has accepted the candidature, so as to offer employment. But clause 19(vi)&(vii) of Ext.P1 notification may be a pointer to infer the scope of the proceedings by way of written test and interview. Sub clause (vi) says that, admission to written test examination will be provisional, without verification of age/ qualification/ category (SC/ST/PWD/XS) etc. of the candidates with reference _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **19** to the documents. Sub clause (vii) says that, documents relating to age/qualification/category etc. will have to be submitted at the time of interview, by the candidates called for interview. A distinction can be drawn to the extent that, though it is stipulated that there will not be any verification with regard to the qualification, age and such other credentials when the candidates are called for the written test (which will on the other hand be acted upon the basis of the data put in by the parties concerned), when it comes to the next stage of interview, it is for the purpose of verification of the documents and for assessing the traits/ credentials of the applicants. In other words, only the eligible candidates were actually intended to be called for the interview, also for verification of the originals and it was accordingly, that the petitioners were called for interview for verification of the records and to assess them, based on their eligibility. It was at this point of time, that a doubt arose as to the possession of _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **20** Certificate/Diploma Training qualification of some persons like the petitioners and it was in the said circumstance, that clarification was sought to be obtained from the Joint Director of Technical Educations, as to whether such Diploma Certificate/Training qualification could be equivalent to 'Plus-Two'. This has been answered by the Joint Director of Technical Education as per Ext.R2(a), pointing out that the said qualification never be treated as equivalent, as it is a separate line of its own, coming within the zone of technical education, whereas Standard X or Standard XII is in the realm of general education. 20. In view of the above discussion and also in view of the fact that, no stipulation was contained in Ext.P1 notification that the concerned candidate should not have any other qualification, this Court cannot but hold that the course now pursued by the respondent Bank, so as to non-suit the persons like the petitioners is not correct or proper and it will in no way serve the _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **21** organisational interest of the Bank, who in fact finds it difficult to fill up the urgent requirement even in Class (IV) posts. 21. Mr. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank rightly points out that, only some of the petitioners were fortunate in obtaining interim orders from this Court, so as to have had an entry to the interview, which in turn has been done. There may be so many other candidates, who had returned home, based on the instruction given by the officers on spot from the part of the respondent Bank, with reference to their qualification like Certificate, Diploma etc. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find it fit and proper to give a positive direction to redress the grievance of the petitioners alone. Considering the larger interest involved, the respondent Bank is directed to notify a date for conducting a 'fresh interview' for the left out category, whose candidature came to be rejected for the reasons mentioned above, to be considered, selected and _W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014_ **22** appointed against the vacant posts, if they come out successful. It is made clear that, the candidates, who have been interviewed pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the concerned cases (or otherwise) need not be interviewed again, unless administrative reasons demand so and their candidature also should be considered along with the others. The above process shall be completed at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All the writ petitions stands allowed to the said extent. No costs. ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** sp