JUDGMENT : The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5303 of 2020 were engaged on contract/daily wage basis in the second respondent Bank. While so, they applied for the post of 'Safai Karmachari-cum-Sepoy' pursuant to Ext.P3 notification issued by the Bank. As part of the selection process, an interview was conducted on 04.10.2019 and the candidates were informed that the result of interview will be intimated in due course. According to the petitioners, no rank list was published after the interview were taken by surprise on coming to know about the appointment of respondents 4 to 48. This writ petition is filed alleging nepotism, favouritism and procedural violations in the selection and appointment of respondents 4 to 48. The following reliefs are sought in the writ petition; “i. To call for all the records of the selection/appointment procedure pursuant to Ext.P3 and ascertain the legality of the selection process undertaken by respondents 1 to 2; ii. To issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ to quash the selection process selecting respondents 4 to 25 to the post of 'Safai Karmachari-cum-Sepoy' in the 2nd respondent bank. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ directing respondents 1, 2 and 3 to consider the Ext.P1 and P1(a) applications of the petitioners to the post of 'Safai Karmachari-cum-Sepoy' in a transparent manner by disclosing the marks secured for the interview by all the applicants.” 2. Adv.Anagha Lakshmy Raman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5303 of 2020 put forth the following arguments; ? The entire process of selection is vitiated by favouritism, nepotism and procedural irregularities. From among respondents 4 to 48, 19 persons (4 to 21) are immediate relatives of employees/officers of the Bank and some are close relatives of the members of the Interview Committee. In an attempt to suppress this illegality, the second respondent did not even publish the rank list. ? The Interview Committee was not constituted in terms of the guidelines. For instance, one of the members of the Interview Committee namely, Sri.George Varghese, was included as a member, without being included in the proceedings relating to the constitution of the Interview Committee. ? The Interview Committee was not constituted in terms of the guidelines. For instance, one of the members of the Interview Committee namely, Sri.George Varghese, was included as a member, without being included in the proceedings relating to the constitution of the Interview Committee. The constitution of an impartial and competent Selection Board and formulation of proper procedure by that Board will go a long way in making the process of selection and recruitment, objective, fair and reasonable, apart from bringing transparency to the process of recruitment. ? From among the respondents, 5 candidates (respondents 15,16,17, 20 and 42) belong to the reserved category, but are included as general category candidates. Being so, they are not entitled for the relaxation applicable to reserved category candidates. In spite of this fact, those respondents were granted relaxation in age. Moreover, by including reserved category candidates as general candidates, the second respondent managed to induct others in the reserved category. ? The selection based on interview was conducted in gross violation of the interdiction in Exts.P11 and P12 notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance. The notifications required all Public Sector Banks to discontinue interview as the mode of selection for clerical and sub-staff posts by 31.12.2015. ? Selection and appointment to the post in State and Public Sector Undertakings should conform to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Articles 14 and 16. The objective of conducting selection for making appointment is to select the best and most suitable persons. In the instant case, the selection was not based on performance, but extraneous considerations, which is anathema as far as public employment is concerned. This position has been clearly laid down by the Apex Court in Ramjit Singh Kardam v Sanjeev Kumar [ 2020(20) SCC 209 ]. ? Continuance in office of persons selected by means that are not fair, transparent and reasonable will perpetuate the illegality committed by the Bank and its officials. In support of this argument, learned Counsel referred to the decision in Hitendra Singh v P.D.Krishi Vidyapeeth [2014 (8) SCC 269]. In conclusion, learned Counsel argued that the illegal selection and appointments militates against the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners and other participants under Articles 14 and 16 and hence, this Court should not hesitate to set right the illegality. 3. In conclusion, learned Counsel argued that the illegal selection and appointments militates against the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners and other participants under Articles 14 and 16 and hence, this Court should not hesitate to set right the illegality. 3. Adv.Dinesh Mathew J.Muriken, appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9137 of 2021, supported the above contentions and reiterated that the entire selection is vitiated by illegalities. It is further argued that the petitioner having continued in the service of the Bank for more than 10 years, her service is liable to be regularised, de hors the selection process. 4. Adv.Rakesh P appearing for the third respondent Union submitted that, recruitment to the post of Safai Karmachari-cum-Sepoy from among daily wage contract employees was conducted based on Ext.R3(a) Memorandum of Settlement dated 25.06.2013. As per the terms of the settlement, suitability of candidates for selection was to be assessed by the Interview Committee consisting of one Senior Executive not below Scale-V, one Chief Manager (Scale IV) and one Senior Manager/Manager (Scale III/II). The total marks for assessing suitability was fixed as 50. The marks were to be awarded based on (i) ability to read the language of the State/Hindi/English (15 marks), (ii) ability to write the language of the State/Hindi/English (15 marks) and (iii) General awareness. It is pointed out that as per Clause 3.6 of Ext.R3(a), Government Guidelines regarding reservation of posts for SC/ST/OBC/PWD etc for recruitment of sub-staff in the bank was made applicable to the subject selection also. It is contended that the reservation clauses were violated and publication of final list was kept a secret. Pointing out these irregularities, the Union has filed Ext.R3(c) complaint before the Zonal Manager. 5. Adv.Jawahar Jose appearing for the respondent Bank refuted each one of the petitioners' allegations. In answer to the contention that the selection process was rife with illegalities and kith and kin of the employees and the officers were appointed, it is submitted that the selection was conducted in strict compliance of the procedure prescribed in Ext.P7 Guidelines. It is pointed out that the practice in the respondent Bank was to appoint casual/temporary workers without any selection process. As a result, majority of the casual/temporary workers happened to be relatives of officers/staff of the bank. It is pointed out that the practice in the respondent Bank was to appoint casual/temporary workers without any selection process. As a result, majority of the casual/temporary workers happened to be relatives of officers/staff of the bank. Later, at the demand of the employees Union, a Memorandum of Settlement was entered into, wherein the Bank agreed to conduct one time selection to regularise the service of the casual workers. Accordingly, Ext.P3 notification was issued and selection conducted. Majority of the employees, who had responded to the notification, being relatives of officers/staff, the allegation that the selection process is vitiated by nepotism is only to be discarded. Pertinently, other than vague allegations, the petitioners have not been able to point out any specific instance of favoritism or nepotism in the selection and appointment. 6. The allegation that the rank list was not published is factually incorrect, since Ext.R1(f) rank list was published on 20.12.2019. Moreover, at the request of the petitioners, the respondent Bank had even furnished the address and details of the rank listed candidates. 7. The contention that reserved candidates were included in the general category and were simultaneously granted relaxation in age is also unsustainable. Ext.P3 notification was issued without specifically identifying any post for reserved category candidates. The reserved category candidates were granted no advantage, except at the threshold stage, that too, only for the purpose of relaxation in age. They had participated in the selection process along with other candidates and were included in the rank list based on merit. No separate list for general category and reserved category candidates having been published, the allegation that by including meritorious reserved category candidates in the general category, the respondent Bank had inducted more candidates in the reserved category is without basis. 8. The challenge based on Exts.P11 and P12 notifications is also of no avail. The bank had to conduct the selection and appointment as a one time measure since it was bound by Ext.R3(a) Memorandum of Settlement. Moreover, Sections 12(3) and 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act imposes a duty on the parties to abide by the terms of settlement. 9. The allegation that George Varghese's name was not included in the proceedings pertaining to constitution of the Interview Committee is unsustainable. As per the stipulations in Ext.R1(c) inter-office memorandum, the Interview Committee should consist of minimum three members. 9. The allegation that George Varghese's name was not included in the proceedings pertaining to constitution of the Interview Committee is unsustainable. As per the stipulations in Ext.R1(c) inter-office memorandum, the Interview Committee should consist of minimum three members. At least one member should belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the other member, to the OBC. After preparing Ext.R1(d) probable list of Interview Committee members, it was noticed that there were only three Scale IV Officers in one of the Committees. The said inadvertent mistake was corrected, while constituting the Interview Committee as per Ext.R1(e) document. By the inclusion of Sri.Geoerge Varghese as a member of one of the Interview Committees, absolutely no prejudice was caused to the petitioners. 10. It is contended that the vague and unsubstantiated allegations raised in the writ petition should not prusade this Court to interfere with the selection process. The Apex Court's decisions in Chandra Prakash Singh v Purvanchal Gramin Bank [ (2008) 12 SCC 292 ] and Union of India v Bikash Kuanar [ 2006 (8) SCC 192 ] are relied on to contend that, sanctity of selection process should not be impeached under Article 226, unless the allegations are found to be grave and acceptable supporting materials are produced. 11. The decisions of the Apex Court in Madan Lal and others v State of J & K and others [ 1995 (3) SCC 486 ], is pressed into service to contend that, after participating in a selection process without demur, the candidates cannot take a U-turn and challenge the selection as illegal. 12. Adv.Rekha Vasudevan, learned Counsel appearing for some of the party respondents in W.P.(C) No.5303 of 2020, questioned the locus of the petitioners to file the writ petition. It is contended that, having participated in the selection process, the petitioners are estopped from assailing the selection process. In support of this argument, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision in Union of India and others v S.Vinodh Kumar and others [ 2007 (8) SCC 100 ]. 13. The decision in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and others v Dr.B.S.Mahajan and others [ 1990 (1) SCC 305 ] is relied on to contend that courts should not interfere with selection process casually and has a duty to scrutinise the allegations meticulously before proceeding further. 13. The decision in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and others v Dr.B.S.Mahajan and others [ 1990 (1) SCC 305 ] is relied on to contend that courts should not interfere with selection process casually and has a duty to scrutinise the allegations meticulously before proceeding further. It is contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine as wanton allegations are raised against members of the Interview Committee without impleading them. 14. The selection and appointment is challenged mainly on the ground that relatives of officers and staff of the Bank were appointed without following the prescribed procedure. It is alleged that some of the appointed candidates were relatives of members of the Interview Committee also. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners had pointed out certain specific instances. As held in Ramjit Singh Kardam v Sanjeev Kumar [ 2020(20) SCC 209 ], any selection that is not based on performance but extraneous consideration is anathema as far as public employment is concerned. The question therefore is whether, mere inclusion of relatives of officers and staff in the select list can lead to a conclusion that the recruitment process is vitiated by nepotism and arbitrariness. In this regard it is pertinent to note the undisputed submission of the Bank that the practice hitherto followed in the bank was to appoint sub-staff in the branches and head office on daily wage/contract basis. As a result, a large number of contract/daily wage sub-staff happened to be relatives of officers and staff. Hence, a large number of applicants for the post of Safai- Karmachari-Cum-Sepoy were relatives of officers and staff. This had naturally resulted in some of the appointed persons being relatives. Circumstances being such, merely for the reason that some of the appointees are relatives of staff and members, the selection process cannot be interfered or the appointments set aside, particularly in the absence of any material to show that the award of marks for the interview was tainted by mala fides. In this regard, it is apposite to note the following observation of the Apex Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke; “12. …..Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. In this regard, it is apposite to note the following observation of the Apex Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke; “12. …..Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc.” The position has been reiterated in M.V.Thimmaiah and others v Union Public Service Commission and others [ 2008(2) SCC 119 ]. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder for ease of reference; “21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion.” 15. Going by the legal position emanating from the above judgments, a selection process shall not be interfered by exercising the power under Article 226, without the court being convinced that the recruitment process is vitiated by patent illegalities and extraneous considerations. 16. The contention that the list of selected candidates was not published is belied by Ext.R1(f), copy of rank list dated 20.12.2019. I also find substance in the contention of the Bank that the petitioners could array the candidates included in the rank list as respondents in the writ petition, since the rank list was published. Therefore, the said allegation is found to be without substance. 17. The next ground of challenge is based on inclusion of five candidates belonging to the reserved category as general category candidates and granting them the benefit of age relaxation. In support of the contention, the petitioners rely on Ext.R3(a) Memorandum of Settlement which makes the Government Guidelines, with regard to reservation of posts, applicable to the recruitment of sub-staff. 17. The next ground of challenge is based on inclusion of five candidates belonging to the reserved category as general category candidates and granting them the benefit of age relaxation. In support of the contention, the petitioners rely on Ext.R3(a) Memorandum of Settlement which makes the Government Guidelines, with regard to reservation of posts, applicable to the recruitment of sub-staff. Pertinently, in Ext.P3 notification, it is clearly mentioned that the SC/ST candidates will be eligible for age relaxation. Accordingly, age relaxation was granted while considering the eligibility for appointment. The petitioners were fully aware of the above clause in the notification, in spite of which, they participated in the selection process without demur. In the above context, the decisions of the Apex Court in Madan Lal and others assumes relevance. Therein, the Apex Court has held as under; “... it is now 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 selection committee was not properly constituted.” The above position was reiterated in Union of India and others v. S.Vinodh Kumar and others [ 2007 (8) SCC 100 ]. 18. Pertinently, in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP [ (2010) 3 SCC 119 ], the Apex Court has held that a candidate acquiring a berth in the merit list on the basis of his own merit, though entitled for relaxed standard in determination in merit based on reservation, cannot be treated to have been selected as a reserved candidate. 19. The final contention is regarding the inclusion of George Varghese as a member of the interview Committee without following the prescribed procedure. As rightly pointed out by the Counsel for the Bank, the petitioners have no case that they were put to any kind of prejudice by reason of such inclusion. The explanation offered by the Bank for the inclusion of George Varghese is also not disputed. Moreover, as contended by the Counsel for the party respondents, allegation raised without impleading the person concerned, is liable to be rejected. 20. The explanation offered by the Bank for the inclusion of George Varghese is also not disputed. Moreover, as contended by the Counsel for the party respondents, allegation raised without impleading the person concerned, is liable to be rejected. 20. As regards the challenge based on Exts.P11 and P12, I find merit in the submission of the Standing Counsel that, in view of the memorandum of settlement, the bank was bound to conduct the test, irrespective of Exts.P11 and P12. The higher pedestal in which a memorandum of settlement is to be placed has been clearly laid down by the Apex Court in P.Virudhachalam and others v Management of Lotus Mills and another [ (1998) 1 SCC 650 ], the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder; “Any settlement between the employer and the employees is placed on a higher pedestal than an award passed after adjudication. The machinery of the Act envisages resolution of industrial disputes and conflicts at the grassroot level by conciliation by which settlement can be arrived at between the employer and the workmen and industrial peace can be achieved and industrial strife can be put to an end. In view of Section 2(p), a settlement which is based on a written agreement between the parties can be arrived at either in conciliation proceedings or even outside conciliation proceedings between the representatives of the workmen on the one hand and the management on the other. Section 18(1) and (3) deal with the binding nature of the two types of settlement.” For the aforementioned reasons, in spite of the erudite arguments advanced by Adv.Anagha Lakshmy Raman, I am not inclined to interfere with the selection and appointments based on Ext.P3. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed.