JUDGMENT [WP(C) Nos.19520/2021, 19634/2022, 29714/2023, 31579/2023] “C.R.” Heard Mr Lindons C Davis, Ms Nisha George, Mr Abhilash M J, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Amal George, learned Standing Counsel for the State Bank of India, Mr M Sasindran, learned Standing Counsel for the Sainik Welfare Vikas Bhavan, and Ms Parvathy Kottol, learned Government Pleader, for the State. Facts 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are the Ex-Defence servicemen who have retired from the Defence Services – Army, Navy and Air Force after completing full service, i.e., a minimum of 15 years of service. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 19520/2021 challenge the selection to the post of Armed Guards for the recruitment year 2019-2020 and the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.19634/2022, 29714/2023 and 31579/2023 challenge the selection to the post of Armed Guards for the recruitment year 2021-2022. The facts are substantially similar in all the writ petitions. 2.1 The petitioners were applicants to the post of Bank Guards in the State Bank of India in pursuance of the State Bank of India Corporate Centre’s letter No.HR/IR/SKJ/1840 dated 27.11.2019 whereby the Corporate Office sanctioned the recruitment of Bank Guards in Thiruvananthapuram Circle. The Corporate Office also prepared guidelines for the recruitment of Armed Guards with a view to having uniform procedures and norms for the recruitment of Bank Guards in the Bank and these guidelines were also forwarded along with the letter dated 27.11.2019. 2.2 As per the guidelines, once sanction for recruitment was received from the Corporate Centre, the HR Department of the Circle should initiate steps to write to the Rajya Sainik Board (RSB) with a copy endorsed to the Zila Sainik Kalyan Adikari (ZSKA)/ Zila Sainik Welfare Board Officer (ZSWBO) of every district seeking the list of Ex-servicemen (ESM) twenty times the number of vacancies. It is also provided that if the RSB/ ZSKA/ ZSWBO had informed about their inability to provide the required number of Ex-servicemen, then the Bank was required to send a similar letter to the Army Welfare Placement Organization (AWPO) seeking the list of Ex-servicemen. 2.3 The Corporate Centre modified the eligibility criteria for participating in the selection to the post of Bank Guards in letters dated 18.02.2020 and 29.02.2020. The Corporate Centre advised various local head offices of the final eligibility criteria in the letter dated 29.02.2020 [Ext.R1(C)]. 2.3 The Corporate Centre modified the eligibility criteria for participating in the selection to the post of Bank Guards in letters dated 18.02.2020 and 29.02.2020. The Corporate Centre advised various local head offices of the final eligibility criteria in the letter dated 29.02.2020 [Ext.R1(C)]. The final eligibility criteria for participating in the selection process for the post of Bank Guards were as follows: “Eligibility Criteria: (a) Upper Age Limit: 45 years as on October of the calendar year, in which recruitment sanction is accorded by IR Dept, Corporate Centre. (b) Civil Educational Qualification: A pass in 8th standard or its equivalent, but the candidate should not have passed the Graduate examination or its equivalent. (c) Defence Service: Ex-servicemen who have retired from the defence services, i.e. Army, Navy or Air Force, after completing full colour service, i.e. minimum of 15 years of service and have not taken premature retirement on medical/disciplinary grounds or have not medically boarded out. (d) Rank: Havildar or below in the Army or equivalent in the Navy/Air Force. Honorary Naib Subedars or equivalent will not be eligible. (e) Character: Minimum requirement will be ’GOOD’ (f) Medical Requirement: ’AYE’ or SHAPE-I, at the time of release from the Armed forces, as entered in the discharge book. (g) Category: The Candidates from ’Fighting Arms’ as well as ’Services’ from the Army, Navy or Air Force will be eligible to apply for the post of Bank Guard. (h) Trade: Candidates shall be ’General Duty’ soldiers and not Non-General/ Technical Soldiers." 2.4 On receiving the names of twenty times the number of vacancies from RSB/ ZSKA/AWPO, a Screening Board was constituted to scrutinize the list forwarded and prepare a final list, and thereafter, the final list was forwarded to different Zonal Offices of the Bank for conducting the selection process. The selection process was based on the ‘marking’ of: (i) Physical and Drill Test (including Turn Out) (ii) Character The total assessment marks in the selection process are prescribed to be 75 marks. Four exercises, against 60 maximum marks, were required to be obtained to qualify for inclusion in the list. The minimum mark is 40, with 10 marks for each drill. The four drill tests were sit-ups, push-ups, five-meter shuttle and drill tests, and turnout with a maximum of 15 marks each. The ‘Character’ of a Candidate could have fetched 15 maximum marks. The minimum mark is 40, with 10 marks for each drill. The four drill tests were sit-ups, push-ups, five-meter shuttle and drill tests, and turnout with a maximum of 15 marks each. The ‘Character’ of a Candidate could have fetched 15 maximum marks. However, no minimum marks were prescribed for the said parameter. The marks for ‘Character’ as mentioned in the Discharge Certificate were prescribed as follows: five marks for ‘Good’, ten marks for ‘Very Good’ and fifteen marks for ‘Exemplary’. 2.5 The Circle had called for the recommendation of eligible personnel (Ex-servicemen) from the Directorate of Zila Sainik Welfare Board, and the Board sponsored 1752 candidates. The said sponsored list was scrutinized, and the Bank shortlisted 1557 candidates for the physical test and drill test in order to complete the selection process in a time-bound manner. The Physical and Drill tests of the candidates were conducted between 30.12.2020 to 13.01.2021 at six venues. Out of the 1557 candidates, only 895 participated in the physical test. A Selection Committee was formed. The entire selection process in the Circle was completed on 13.01.2021. 2.6 It is also stated that the candidates who appeared for the physical test were given random chest numbers to ensure that their actual names and identities were not known to the people who were evaluating them. Separate merit lists were prepared for SC, ST, OBC and General category candidates as per the relevant guidelines of the Government of India. Out of 895 candidates, 327 candidates passed the physical tests, 5 candidates got disqualified and 563 candidates failed. 3. After the petitioners participated in the selection process of Bank Guards and failed to secure their place in the select list, they approached this Court by filing these writ petitions for cancelling the entire selection process and for directions to conduct fresh selection. Petitioners’ submission 4. According to the petitioners the whole selection process was marred with corruption, nepotism and arbitrariness. They have submitted that the result of the selection was not published, and it was not made available even to the candidates who participated in the selection process. It is submitted that the entire selection process is shrouded in mystery and the Bank has not come out with the result of selection by publishing the result. They have submitted that the result of the selection was not published, and it was not made available even to the candidates who participated in the selection process. It is submitted that the entire selection process is shrouded in mystery and the Bank has not come out with the result of selection by publishing the result. The petitioners have also alleged that some of the persons who could not complete the physical and drill tests have been given appointments. However, no particulars have been given about the candidates against whom such an allegation has been levelled. The petitioners have also alleged that 50% of the persons appointed are from the Infantry Madras Regiment. 4.1 The next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that candidates were also sponsored by the AWPO and the AWPO could have sponsored the candidates only when the RSB/ ZSKA/ ZSWBO were not in a position to sponsor twenty times the number of vacancies. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that fifteen marks for ‘Character’ is for an ‘exemplary’ certificate. However, all the candidates have been given fifteen maximum marks, including the petitioners, which itself would demonstrate that the selection was made in a casual and arbitrary manner without adhering to the guidelines as prescribed in Exhibit R1(B). 4.2 It is further stated that one of the members of the Selection Committee was found to have accepted a bribe of Rs.3 lakhs from a candidate, and thus, he was removed from the service. This shows that there was large-scale corruption in the selection process. Furthermore, the learned Counsel submitted that the selection to a public post should be just fair and transparent without an element of arbitrariness or mala fide. It is submitted that the Bank has failed to disclose the marks obtained by each candidate inasmuch as the Bank has not published the result and the selection was concluded in a secret manner mysteriously. So, the selection process deserves to be quashed and set aside. Respondent’s submission 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank has refuted the said allegations. He has submitted that the Bank has framed the revised guidelines for the recruitment of Bank Guards in Ext.R1(B), and the whole selection process has been just, fair, transparent and without any element of arbitrariness or mala fide. Respondent’s submission 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank has refuted the said allegations. He has submitted that the Bank has framed the revised guidelines for the recruitment of Bank Guards in Ext.R1(B), and the whole selection process has been just, fair, transparent and without any element of arbitrariness or mala fide. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on paragraph 4 of the guidelines in Ext.R1(B), which reads as follows: “4. Once recruitment sanction is received from Corporate Centre, HR Dept. of the Circle should initiate steps to write to the Rajya Sainik Board (RSB), with a copy endorsed to Zila Sainik Kalyan Adhikari (ZSKA) / Zila Sainik Welfare Officer (ZSWO) of every district. A suggested format of the letter to be sent to these officials is given in ’Annexure B’. They should be requested to forward list of ESM, 20 times the number of vacancies, as per format enclosed at ’Annexure C’. A similar letter may also be sent to the Placement Nodes of the Army Welfare Placement Organisation (AWPO), in case of RSB/ZSKA/ZSWO has advised their inability to sponsor required number of ESM in writing. Further, registration of candidates sponsored by AWPO with ZSKA/ZSWO is compulsory and proof of such registration should be submitted by the AWPO Placement Node or the candidate. In case the total number of candidates is less than 20 times, as required, Circles would have to make do with the available list. However, every effort should be made to obtain a maximum number of candidates in order to broad-base the selection process.” 5.1 The learned Counsel further submits that the effort should have been made to obtain the maximum number of candidates in order to have a broad-base selection process and the candidates sponsored by AWPO Placement Node were also required to have registration with ZSKA/ZSWO/ ZSWBO. Two of the petitioners themselves were sponsored by the AWPO. Therefore, this ground is not available to them to challenge the selection process on the ground that some of the candidates were sponsored by AWPO. The employer, i.e. the Bank, has the right to obtain a maximum number of candidates in order to have a broad base selection for the post of Bank Guards. Therefore, this ground is not available to them to challenge the selection process on the ground that some of the candidates were sponsored by AWPO. The employer, i.e. the Bank, has the right to obtain a maximum number of candidates in order to have a broad base selection for the post of Bank Guards. 5.2 Furthermore, it is submitted that the candidates who had the certificate of discharge with ‘exemplary’ service were given fifteen marks, with ‘very good' service were given ten marks and with ‘good’ service were given five marks, which was the benchmark. As the petitioners have certificates of ‘exemplary’ service, they were given fifteen marks. The allegations of the petitioners that all the candidates were given fifteen marks is wholly incorrect and only candidates who have the ‘exemplary’ certificate were given the maximum of fifteen marks for ‘Character’. 5.3 It is also stated that, as per the guidelines, the results of only selected candidates were required to be published. A total of 44 candidates were selected and the last candidate in the General category scored 72 marks. All the petitioners, whose marks have been disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, have scored less than 72 marks. A separate list of selected candidates for the General category, SC/ST/OBC/Economically Weaker Sections were also published. When the petitioners have scored less than the last candidate who was selected and has participated in the selection process without any demur, they don’t have the right to challenge the selection process on some flimsy grounds without substantiating the allegations. In respect of one of the members having been found to have accepted the bribe it is submitted that the said person was removed. However, this was in respect of another selection process and not in respect of the subject selection process, the subject matter of the writ petition. 5.4 The list of selected categories, i.e., General category, SC/ST category, OBC category, have been placed with the additional counter affidavit. The marks obtained by the petitioners have also been disclosed in the counter affidavit. Discussion and Analysis 6. The question which needs to be considered in these writ petitions is whether the Court should order a fishing and roving enquiry in the selection for the post of Bank Guards conducted in the recruitment years 2019-20 and 2021-22 for which the selection was concluded, and the selected persons have been appointed. 7. Discussion and Analysis 6. The question which needs to be considered in these writ petitions is whether the Court should order a fishing and roving enquiry in the selection for the post of Bank Guards conducted in the recruitment years 2019-20 and 2021-22 for which the selection was concluded, and the selected persons have been appointed. 7. The petitioners have made the allegations of corruption, etc, without substantiating the same in any manner. The Selection Committee consists of four persons. The detailed procedure for selection was prescribed in the guidelines. This Court is of the view that the guidelines have not been violated to render the selection process illegal or to term it arbitrary, unjust, unfair and mala fide. When two of the petitioners themselves are sponsored by the AWPO and the guidelines themselves provide for inviting more candidates to have broad-based selection, some of the candidates being sponsored by the AWPO will not make the selection invalid or illegal. 7.1 The guidelines do not provide for publishing the result of the entire selection, but it only contemplates the publication of the results of the selected candidates. The petitioner’s marks have been disclosed in the counter affidavit, as well as the marks obtained by the selected candidates. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have been given less marks than they ought to have been given. When the petitioners have not obtained the marks of the last selected candidates, the challenge to the selection process based on an unsubstantiated allegation cannot be countenanced, and no relief for setting aside the selection process for the post of Bank Guard can be granted by the Court. The Court should not indulge in fishing and roving enquiry in respect of the selection to a public post unless and until the candidate comes with clear proof of mala fide and arbitrariness in the selection process. 8. In The Municipal Board, Maunath Bhajan v. M/s Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited , (1977) 1 SCC 875 the Supreme Court has held that a High Court, in the absence of a specific plea and ground of invalidity, is not justified in entering into a roving enquiry and interfering with the continuing state of affairs. 8. In The Municipal Board, Maunath Bhajan v. M/s Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited , (1977) 1 SCC 875 the Supreme Court has held that a High Court, in the absence of a specific plea and ground of invalidity, is not justified in entering into a roving enquiry and interfering with the continuing state of affairs. 8.1 In UBS Publishers and Distributors, Limited v. Industrial Workers Union , 1997 (3) LLN 168 , the High Court at Bombay in paragraph 11 is held thus: “In 20 th Century-Fox Corporation (India) (Private), Ltd. (vide supra), a division Bench of this Court was seized of similar question and after surveying the relevant provision of the Industrial Disputes Act and the rules framed thereunder and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as various judgments, ruled that a party to a litigation cannot be permitted to embark on a fishing and roving enquiry in the hope that some material will come to hand on the basis of which he can set out his case. The Division Bench cautioned that in appropriate cases if the material is necessary, the Tribunal can order the production of relevant documents for the purposes of adjudication but before that can be done, it would be the duty of the party asking the production of documents to make out a case why it would be necessary for certain documents to be produced.” 8.2 In the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Limited v. State of Uttaranchal , (2007) 8 SCC 418 in paragraph 83 it has been held as follows: “83. Allegations of mala fide are serious in nature and they essentially raise a question of fact. It is, therefore, necessary for the person making such allegations to supply full particulars in the petition. If sufficient averments and requisite materials are not on record, the court would not make "fishing" or roving inquiry. Mere assertion, vague averment or bald statement is not enough to hold the action to be mala fide. It must be demonstrated by facts. Moreover, the burden of proving mala fide is on the person levelling such allegations and the burden is "very heavy" (vide E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.). The charge of mala fide is more easily made than made out . It must be demonstrated by facts. Moreover, the burden of proving mala fide is on the person levelling such allegations and the burden is "very heavy" (vide E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.). The charge of mala fide is more easily made than made out . As stated by Krishna Iyer, J. in Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra, it is the last refuge of a losing litigant (see also Ajit Kumar Nag v. GM(PJ), Indian Oil Corpn.). In the case on hand, except alleging that the policy was altered by the Government, to extend the benefit to Respondent 4, no material whatsoever has been placed on record by the appellant. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the learned counsel that the impugned action is mala fide or malicious.” (emphasis supplied) Result 9. From the facts and discussion as noted above, this Court finds that the petitioners’ allegations are vague and unsubstantiated and without substance. In view thereof, this Court finds that the reliefs sought in these writ petitions cannot be granted. Thus, the writ petitions fail, which are hereby dismissed. All Interlocutory Applications regarding interim matters stand closed.