Dismissed

Sreeja.C.S. v. State Bank of Travancore

Kerala HC1 Sept 2021WP(C)/1951/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged her non-selection for a part-time sweeper post, alleging lack of transparency and a bad selection process supported by factual discrepancies. The court found no evidence of mala fides or violation of guidelines, dismissing the petition as the rank list was published and the bank's guidelines were not violated.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was evaluated and found to fail on merits; no relief was granted to the petitioner.

Sreeja.C.S. Vs State Bank of Travancore — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1951 OF 2014

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SREEJA.C.S. W/O.PEETHAMBARAN, ARAMKUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, RAJAKUMARI (P.O.), IDUKKI - 685 619. BY ADVS. SRI.DENU JOSEPH SRI.LALBIND.M.M.

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

1 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE ZONAL OFFICE ERNAKULAM, SBT BHAVAN, PANAMBILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.

¶10

2 THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE RAJAKUMARI BRANCH, RAJAKUMARI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN: 685 619. REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER. 3 SMT.SHAILA ROY ALACKAKUDY, RAJAKUMARI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN: 685 619. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)NO.1951/2014

JUDGMENT

The first respondent, erstwhile State Bank of Travancore, Zonal Office, Ernakulam, issued Ext.P1 notification calling upon the candidates, for filing up the vacancies of maintenance staff(part time sweeper) in Ernakulam and Idukki District. Petitioner responded by Ext.P2 application. In the application she claimed that she was a Hindu Ezhava belonging to other backward community. .She also claimed that she had experience in working in the SB, Rajakumari Branch. Ext.P3 is the caste certificate produced by her dated 18/9/2009. Pursuant to it, the bank conducted an interview and shortlisted 12 candidates from Ext.P8 selected candidate list. Petitioner was not selected. Hence, the petitioner approached this court claiming that the process of selection was not transparent and that the process of selection was bad.

¶16

The first and second respondents have filed separate statements followed by counter affidavits. 3^rd respondent is the candidate selected to the post of part time sweeper, at Rajakumari Branch.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the counter affidavits as well as the statements, contended that application of the petitioner seems to have not been considered on a premise that her caste certificate was obsolete and certificate evidencing her experience was not attached. According to the learned counsel, petitioner belonged to OBC evidenced by Ext.P3 and the fact

¶18

W.P.(C)NO.1951/2014

¶19

¶20

that she was engaged in Rajakumari Branch was born out from the records of the bank itself, which could not be disputed by the respondents. It was contended that the rank list was not published and that the petitioner was not intimated about the non selection. Pointing out few factual discrepancies in the datas found in the reply given under the RT Act, with the writ petition, statements and the counter affidavits filed by the first and the second respondents, learned counsel contended that they disclose the lack of transparency in the selection process.

¶21

In the counter affidavits it was asserted that, the petitioner has not produced any document to prove her claim of experience. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P1 notification was issued from the zonal office and the application was also processed by the zonal office. Interview was held by four members who were the representatives of the various categories of senior officers. It is a fact that experience certificate of the candidate was not produced. Hence, it cannot be explicit that the experience of the candidate will be known to them. It is also pertinent to note that there is nothing on record to show that the process of selection was not transparent or that members of the Board were actuated by mala fides. Petitioner has no such a case that any of the guidelines fixed by the first respondent bank was violated in the selection process. Merely on the basis of discrepancies in factual aspect, that too, in relation to those things that occurred after the selection process, I am not inclined to arrive at a conclusion that the selection process was bad. It is also on record that the rank list was published in the notice board of the bank.

¶22

W.P.(C)NO.1951/2014

¶23

¶24

Having considered the above, I find no reason to interfere in the

¶25

selection process. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

Judge

dpk

W.P.(C)NO.1951/2014

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 19-1012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶35

EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 22/12/12 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶36

EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 18/9/2009 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶37

EXT.P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER NO.DGM/EKM/PER/PTS/F/13/4 DATED 22/07/13 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶38

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16/1/2014 SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF RESPONDENT NO.2

¶39

EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5/2/2014 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK

¶40

EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 5/2/2014 SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.

¶41

EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPLY NO.DGM/EKM/RTI/2153 DATED 3/3/2014 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.

¶42

EXT.P9: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15/3/2014 SUBMITTED TO THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES.

¶43

EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 20/3/2014 ISSUED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES.

Sreeja.C.S. v. State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreeja.C.S. v. State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajeev Kumar K.S. Vs the State of Kerala

Geetha P.R. Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan.O.a, Vs State of Kerala

R.Nagarajan Vs Union of India

Jeevan Johny Vs the Pharmaceutical Corporation (General Medicines) Kerala Ltd.

K.R. Sanjayan Nampoothiri, Vs Travancore Devaswom Board