Shinos P.M. v. Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 9964 of 2016 -----------------------** ## **PETITIONER** **----------** **SHINOS P.M, PANIKKARUKUDY HOUSE, VALLAM-KODANAD ROAD, CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL.P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 550.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.V.VARGHESE SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.K.N.REMYA SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.B.NO.1727, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 016.** **2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, P.B.NO.1727, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 016.** **3. G.MOHANDAS, CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, P.B.NO.1727, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 016.** **4. ANAND.M.T.,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, KASARGODE - 671 121.** **5. KEVIN JOSE GEORGE, ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, ETTUMANOOR - 686 631.** **6. VAISHAKH.S.,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, HEAD OFFICE, P.B.1727, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 016.** **7. SOJI.A., ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION, PETTA, TRIPPUNITHURA - 682 317.** ## **8. SREERAJ.P.,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.1727, KOCHI-16.** **9. JUSTIN THOMAS, ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WARE HOUSE, PONKUNNAM, PIN - 686 506.** ## **10. ANJU RAJASREE.B.S.,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, KOZHIKODE, NEAR MALAYALA MANORAMA, NADAKKAVU.P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 011.** ## **11. V.K.RESHMA,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, ANGADIPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA - 679 321.** ## **12. ARJUN.N.K.,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, PAYYANNUR - 670 307.** ## **13. ARUNKUMAR.R.,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, KATTAPPANA - 685 508.** ## **14. ELDO.T.K.,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, PALA - 686 575.** ## **15. RESNA RAVINDRAN,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, ZONAL OFFICE, THALAI, TEMPLE GATE.P.O., TELLICHERRY - 670 101.** ## **16. NEETHU.A.V.,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, NEAR SBI, PALGHAT - 678 001.** ## **17. MOHIDEEN KUNJU.N.,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 007.** ## **18. RAMSIYA.K.A.,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM, PATTAMBI ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 503.** ## **19. SHAIJI BALKRINI,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, MANANTHAVADY - 670 645.** ## **20. SHERLY.T.U.,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION,HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.1727, KOCHI - 682 016.** **21. DIVYA.M.S, ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, PAZHAKUTTY.P.O., NEDUMANGAD, PIN - 695 561.** **WP(C).No. 9964 of 2016 (U) ---------------------------** **22. SREEROOP,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE,KANHANGAD - 671 315.** **23. SOORYAGAYATHRI, ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.1727, KOCHI-682016.** **24. SACHIN RAJAN.M.,** **ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, STATE WAREHOUSE, KOZHINJAMPARA - 678 555.** *** ADDL 25 IMPLEADED** ## **25. DIRECTOR,** **VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.** *** ADDL R25 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 4/01/2017 IN IA NO 18687/2016** **R1,R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR** **SRI.P.GOPINATH** **SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JACOB ABRAHAM SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, R3 BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR R4 BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR SMT.M.SANTHY SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR R4 BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR SMT.M.SANTHY R5,R9,R12 & R14,R16 & R23 BY ADVS SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD R6,R7,R10,R13& R17,R18,R24 BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN R8,R11,R15,R & 19-R22 BY ADVS. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SMT.SMITHA S.PILLAI SMT.M.C.SINY R25 BY ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-03-2018, ALONG WITH WPC 14288/2016,THE COURT ON 03.04.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **K.V.** **WP(C).No. 9964 of 2016 (U) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** - **EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.KSWC/ADMN14/APPTS/2014-15 DATED 10.02.2015 DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.159.M.C.60 HR.SJ.2015 DATED 02.07.2015 OF THE SENIOR CONSULTANT, KITCO LTD.,** - **EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MARK LIST DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF KITCO.** - **EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSWC/ADMN.14/APPTS/2014/15 DATD14.09.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSWC/ADMN.14/APPTS/2014-15 DATED 18.11.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL RANKED LIST AND APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT MANAGER.** - **EXT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ASSISTANT MANAGERS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF ARKS IN THE WRITTEN TEST,GD AND INTERVIEW.** - **EXT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARISON CHART GROUP DISCUSSION (PREPARED BASED ON THE FACTS FROM RTI DOCUMENTS)** - **EXT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARISON CHART INTERVIEW MARKS (PREPARED BASED ON THE FACTS FROM RTI DOCUMENTS).** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** ## **--------------------** - **R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES WITH THEIR MARKS OBTAINED IN THE WRITTEN TEST AND GROUP DISCUSSION AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 10.2.2015.** - **R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF THE 218TH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE CORPORATION HELD ON 16.11.2015.** - **R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST OF 243 CANDIDATES SHOWING THEIR TOTAL MARKS I.e WRITTEN TEST, GROUP DISCUSSION AND INTERVIEW AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 10.2.2015** - **R20(B)(3) THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO KSWC/ADMN 14 APPTS/AM/2015-16 DATED 27.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ERNAKULAM TO THE 15TH RESPONDENT.** - **R20(B)(4) THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO KSWC/ADMIN 14 APPTS/AM/2015-16 DATED 27.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ERNAKULAM TO THE 19TH RESPONDENT.** - **R20(B)(5) THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO KSWC/ADMN** - **14/APPTS/AM/2015016 DATED 27.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ERNAKULAM TO THE 20TH RESPONDENT.** **WP(C).No. 9964 of 2016 (U)** **---------------------------** **R20(B)(6) THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO KSWC/ADMN14/APPTS/AM/2015-16 DATED 27.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ERNAKULAM TO THE 21ST RESPONDENT.** **R20(B)(7) THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO KSWC/ADMN 14/APPTS/AM/2015-16 DATED 27.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ERNAKULAM TO THE 22ND RESPONDENT.** **/TRUE COPY/** **K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 7.04.2018** ## _**P.V.ASHA, J.**_ -------------------------- W.P(C) Nos.9964 of 2016-U and 14288 of 2016 ------------------------------------------- _Dated this the 3[rd] day of April, 2018_ ## _**JUDGMENT**_ The petitioners in both these writ petitions are candidates who submitted applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Manager in the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `Corporation'). They are aggrieved by the selection of the party respondents alleging that they were included in the top of the rank list awarding high marks to them in the interview on extraneous considerations and selection is vitiated by malpractices and manipulations in the marks. 2. The Corporation issued Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for appointment against 21 posts of Assistant Managers. Qualification prescribed was Post Graduation with MBA or degree in MBA. The Corporation entrusted KITCO, an outside agency, to conduct a written test. The petitioners appeared in the written test held on 25.7.2015. Marks were awarded in 100. The petitioner in W.P(C).No.9964/2016 with W.P(C) Nos.9964 of 2016-U & 14288 of 2016 2 Sl.No.61 obtained 61 marks out of 100. He belongs to Other backward community. A group discussion was conducted for the period from 19.9.2015 to 7.10.2015. The petitioner attended the group discussion on 19.9.2015. He appeared in the interview on 27.11.2015. According to the petitioner, he scored high marks in the written test and group discussion. The interview lasted only for 2 to 3 minutes and he answered all the questions correctly. However, in Ext.P6 rank list the petitioner was ranked at sl.no.29. Petitioner's contention is that all the 21 candidates except rank no.1 in Ext.P6 rank list got very low marks in the written test; whereas they got very high marks in the interview. 3. The 3[rd] respondent, the then Chairman of the Corporation, is impleaded in his personal capacity alleging that he was controlling the entire process of selection after the written test and he manipulated the rank list thereafter by awarding very high marks to the candidates of choice in such a manner that they were pushed to the top. Petitioner has explained the difference in the rank of the top 21 candidates who got appointment, before and after the interview, in a tabular form. It is stated that the 10[th] respondent is the wife of the brother in law of the then Minister for Agriculture. She got only 41 marks in Ext.P3 list and was ranked 1139, but in Ext.P6 list she W.P(C) Nos.9964 of 2016-U & 14288 of 2016 3 was rank no.7 because of the marks awarded in the group discussion and interview. Similarly, in the case of respondent No.21, it is alleged that she is the daughter of the MLA Sri R.Selvaraj, who had originally won election as a candidate from Left Democratic Front (LDF) and subsequently he resigned and joined the United Democratic Front (UDF) and won the election. She is rank No.20. She got only 43 marks in the written test. It is also stated that the MLA is also a neighbuor of the 3[rd] respondent. The petitioner also stated that she was also given a convenient posting. The 17[th] respondent is the son of one Sri Najeeb, President of the District Committee of Janatha Dal (U) Party, Kollam, to which the Minister for Agriculture belongs. He got only 49 marks, but he is rank No.14 in Ext.P6. Respondent No.19 is a close relative of the Director of Agriculture Sri Ashok Kumar Thekkan. Though she obtained only 42 marks, she is ranked 16. It is therefore alleged that the selection and appointment based on Ext.P6 are vitiated by nepotism, illegality and arbitrariness. According to the petitioners, the 3[rd] respondent did not alter the rank position of the first rank holder with 73 marks in the written test in order to make it appear that the selection is conducted based on merit. 4. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit and additional W.P(C) Nos.9964 of 2016-U & 14288 of 2016 4 counter affidavit. It is stated that the Board of Directors had in its 212[th] executive committee held on 29.1.2014 resolved to fill up 21 posts of Assistant Managers in the Corporation and notification was issued thereupon on 10.2.2015 inviting applications for 21 posts of Assistant Managers. In the meeting held on 11.6.2015, the Board of Directors resolved to conduct the selection with 60 marks for written test and 40 marks for interview and to assign KITCO Placement Park, a Government agency to conduct a written test. In the 216[th] meeting of the executive committee held on 3.9.2015 it was decided that a group discussion also should be conducted for assessing the suitability of the candidates, in order to assess their managerial skill, leadership quality, marketing skills etc. as interview alone was not sufficient. It was also decided to constitute a selection committee with the Chairman of the Corporation, Managing Director, Director from Central Warehousing Corporation and an independent subject expert from outside for group discussion and interview. The Executive committee resolved to give 20 marks for group discussion and 20 marks for interview. In the meeting held on 16.11.2015 the executive committee resolved to conduct interview for candidates who secured 50% and above marks in the written test and group discussion W.P(C) Nos.9964 of 2016-U & 14288 of 2016 5 together and resolved to conduct the interview by the same members of the selection committee. The rank list drawn by the selection committee was approved by the executive committee on 7.1.2016 and M.D was authorised to appoint the candidates from the rank list following communal rotation. It is stated that selection was done strictly in accordance with rules and 21 candidates were appointed and they joined duty in January, 2016. It is stated that each of the members gave marks to the candidates out of 5 in the group discussion and interview, and total marks were awarded to candidates after compiling the marks awarded by all the 5 members of the committee. The allegations regarding malpractices and irregularities are denied. 5. An additional counter affidavit was filed in September, 2016 in which it was stated that 3993 candidates participated in the written test. Considering the number of posts, the candidates who obtained 40% and above marks in the written test were called for group discussion. Accordingly, 1299 candidates were called for group discussion, out of which 1120 participated. They produced the mark list Ext.R1(a) indicating the marks of the candidates in the written test and group discussion. The maximum mark in written test was converted to 60. Petitioner's mark was converted as 36.97 out of 60. In the group discussion he was awarded 14 W.P(C) Nos.9964 of 2016-U & 14288 of 2016 6 marks. There are only a very few candidates who scored marks in two digits in the group discussion; the highest being 17. It is stated that candidates who got 50% marks and above in the written test and group discussion together were called for interview as per Ext.R1(b) decision of the executive committee which met on 16.11.2015. 243 candidates attended the interview and they were awarded marks by each of the members of the committee as given in Ext.R1(c). 6. The learned Senior Counsel Sri N.N.Sugunapalan and Sri Nandakumara Menon argued that there is no basis for the allegations raised by the petitioners and the petitioners who appeared in the entire process of selection are estopped from challenging the selection after they found themselves unsuccessful, as held in a series of judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court, relying on the judgments in _**Siraj v. High Court of Kerala**_ [2006 (2) KLT 923 (SC)],, _**Union of India v. S.Vinodh Kumar**_ [(2007) 8 SCC 100], _**Sabareenath Hariharan v. State of Kerala**_ [2013 (2) KLT SN 106], _**Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K.Sivasubramaniyan**_ [(2016) 1 SCC 454], _**Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar**_ [(2017) 4 SCC 357](para.12 to 18), etc. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment in _**Ratnagiri Gas & Power (P) Ltd. v. RDS Projects Ltd.**_ W.P(C) Nos.9964 of 2016-U & 14288 of 2016 7 [(2013) 1 SCC 524 (para.24, 27 and 28] and argued that a writ petition without impleading all the members of the selection committee is liable to be dismissed. 7. On consideration of the rival contentions it is seen that even though the petitioners have raised serious allegations against the selection they do not have a case that the selection was conducted in violation of any rules. There is no complaint over the percentage of marks or about any procedural irregularity in conducting the selection. The allegation is that high marks were awarded to the candidates of their choice to bring them to the top 21 positions. But there is no material to support the said allegation. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the malpracices are so glaring that the marks were awarded in such a way that except in the case of rank No.1, the candidates with 5 marks in written test were awarded 8 marks in the group discussion and 12 marks in the interview. Those with marks 64 to 60 were given 15 and 17 marks in group discussion and interview. Those with 59 to 55 marks in the wrtten test were awarded 15 and 14 marks, those with 54 to 50 were awarded 10 marks each for interview whereas those with marks 49 to 40 in the written test were awarded 18 and 16 marks in the group discussion and interview. But this allegation is not borne out by the W.P(C) Nos.9964 of 2016-U & 14288 of 2016 8 pleadings. On a perusal of the marks shown in Exts.R1(a) and R1(c) it is not seen that such a scale is adopted as alleged by the learned Counsel, though it is seen that the marks awarded to the 20 out of the 21 are high compared to their marks in the written test. However, the marks are awarded by each of the 5 members of the selection committee. Four of them are not made parties. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there was manipulation in the interview marks cannot be accepted. In the judgment in _**Ratnagiri Gas & Power (P) Ltd. v. RDS Projects Ltd.**_ [(2013) 1 SCC 524 while considering the challenge against annulment of a tender process and rejection of tender on the basis of a resolution of the Board of Directors, the Apex Court after referring to a series of earlier judgmens reiterated the proposition that courts shall not render any finding as to malafides, without hearing the persons against whom malafides are alleged. The following paragraphs in the judgment are relevant: 27. There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. As and when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer the charge. In the absence of the person concerned as a party in his/her individual capacity it will neither be fair nor proper to record a finding that malice in fact had vitiated the action taken by the authority concerned. It is important to remember that a judicial pronouncement declaring an action to be mala fide is a serious indictment of the person concerned that can lead to adverse civil consequences against him. Courts have, therefore, to be slow in drawing conclusions when it comes to holding allegations of mala fides to be proved and only in cases where based on the material placed before the Court or facts that are admitted leading to inevitable inferences supporting the charge of mala fides that the Court should record a finding in the process W.P(C) Nos.9964 of 2016-U & 14288 of 2016 9 ensuring that while it does so, it also hears the person who was likely to be affected by such a finding. xxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx **28.3.** The above was reiterated in a recent decision of this Court in _Nirmal Jeet Singh Hoon_ v. _Irtiza Hussain: (2010)14 SCC 564_ and in _All India State Bank Officers’ Federation_ v. _Union of India: ((1997) 9 SCC 151_ . In the latter case this Court observed: (SCC p. 166, para 22) “ _22. There is yet another reason why this contention of the petitioners must fail. It is now settled law that the person against whom mala fides are alleged must be made a party to the proceeding_ . The allegation that the policy was amended with a view to benefit Respondents 4 and 5 would amount to the petitioners contending that the Board of Directors of the Bank sought to favour Respondents 4 and 5 and, therefore, agreed to the proposal put before it. Neither the Chairman nor the Directors, who were present in the said meeting, have been impleaded as respondents. This being so the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the allegations of mala fides, which allegations, in fact, are without merit.” In this case though the petitioners alleged favouritism towards the relatives of the then Minister for Agriculture, MLA of Neyyattinkara, relative of Director of Agriculture, etc. that they are given high marks in the interview, none of them are made parties, except the 3[rd] respondent. Therefore, the allegations of the petitioners on that ground are unsustainnable. 8. Though it is seen that the petitioner scored high marks in written test and group discussion, there is no uniform rule or principle that such a person would fare well in the interview also. It is quite probable that candidates who get very low marks in written test may perform well in discussion and interview. Therefore, merely because some of the candidates who were ranked within the 21 ranks happened to be the relatives of the W.P(C) Nos.9964 of 2016-U & 14288 of 2016 10 then Minister or MLA or political leaders, on that ground alone, it cannot be said that the selection is vitiated. It is seen that the candidates who secured 50% marks in written test and group discussion alone were invited for interview. It is thereafter the rank list is published. The petitioners have also not impleaded any of the members of the selection committee who awarded the marks. It cannot be presumed that all the members of the selection committee were influenced by the 3[rd] respondent so that marks were awarded to the candidates of their choice. Any contention without impleading them in the party array cannot be accepted. In such circumstances, though the allegations raised by the petitioners are likely to arouse a suspicion as to the fairness of selection, mere suspicion cannot be the criteria for this Court to interfere with the selection, as held by the Apex Court in **Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417,** while considering the validity of selection to 61 posts in the Haryana Civil Service Executive Branch. The candidates who got high marks in the written test sought directions to make selection ignoring the marks in the viva-voce examination. The observations in para 21 of the judgment are relevant and read as follows: “21. xxxx Equally it is true that out of the first 16 candidates who topped the list in the written examination, 10 secured poor rating in the viva voce test and W.P(C) Nos.9964 of 2016-U & 14288 of 2016 11 were knocked out of the reckoning while 2 also got low marks in the viva voce test but just managed to scrape through to come within the range of selection. It is also true that out of the first 16 candidates who topped the list on the basis of the combined marks obtained in the written examination and the viva voce test, 12 could come in the list only on account of high marks obtained by them at the viva voce test, though the marks obtained by them in the written examination were not of sufficiently high order. 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 selections 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 markingis 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. Xxxx” I had followed the aforesaid proposition while upholding the selection of Assistants in the Kerala University in para 117 of the judgment in **Ajay v. Sujith** [2017(2) KLT 337] : **Anu S Nair V University of Kerala** [2017 KHC 289], where the Upa Lokayukta had found that the selection was vitiated by corruption and nepotism. 9. Pointing out that this Court has already interfered with the selection and appointments in the Corporation, made by the 3[rd] respondent himself, to the posts of Assistants and also class iv Grade II, the learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the selection in question in this case also requires intervention as manipulations are done at his instance. The fact that other selections in which the 3[rd] respondent was involved were set aside, cannot be a reason to interfere with the selection in question. Each W.P(C) Nos.9964 of 2016-U & 14288 of 2016 12 case has to be decided in the facts and circumstances arising therein. The grounds under which those selections were interfered with, do not exist in this case. 10. Moreover, the petitioners subjected themselves to the entire process of selection. They challenged it only after their rank numbers in the final list were found below the 21 persons appointed. It is settled law that such candidates are estopped from challenging the selection after they became unsuccessful, as held by this Court and the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In **Madan Lal v. State of J&K: (1995) 3 SCC 486** the Apex Court considered the locus standi of a candidate to file a writ petition challenging the selection after he had appeared and lost in it. It was held therein as follows: “ _9_ .xxx xxxxx xxxxx Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.” The aforesaid proposition is reiterated in several judgments including in **D.** **Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom : (2017) 9 SCC 478, Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar : (2017) 4 SCC 357, Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar** : (2016) 1 SCC 454, etc as rightly argued by the learned Senior W.P(C) Nos.9964 of 2016-U & 14288 of 2016 13 Counsel appearing for the respondents. Therefore, I do not find any circumstance to interfere with the selection in question, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- _**(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)**_ _rtr/_