L.S Panta, J.— Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave filed by Shri Chandra Prakash Singh and others (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-1-2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38011 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petition in which prayer for quashing of the examination for promotion of the clerk-cum-cashier and Officer Scale I to the post of Officer Scale I and Officer Scale II respectively and for quashing the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Gramin Bank on 28-8-2004 and other consequential reliefs, came to be dismissed.
3. The relevant and necessary facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal may be stated. Basti Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as “Gramin Bank”) is one of the regional rural banks constituted under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Section 6(2) of the Act lays down that Gramin Bank is sponsored by State Bank of India which has got 35% shareholding, whereas the Government of India has got 50% shareholding while the State of U.P has got balance 15% shareholding.
4. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29 read with Section 17 of the Act, after consultation with the national bank and the sponsor bank, notified the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). The Third Schedule of the Rules deals with the appointment to different categories of officers and other employees to Groups A, B and C either by direct recruitment or by promotion. Clause 2 of the Schedule deals with the promotion/appointment to the post of Scale II officer while Clause 3 deals with the promotion/appointment to the post of Scale I officer. Clause 2 also provides that the post of Scale II officer shall be filled entirely by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. It further provides that the selection of the candidates shall be made by the Committee on the basis of written test, interview and assessment of performance appraisal report for the preceding five years as an officer in Scale I and that the Committee for considering promotion shall consist of the Chairman of the regional rural bank concerned, a Director nominated by the sponsor bank and a Director nominated by the national bank. Sixty (60) marks are prescribed for the written test while twenty (20) marks are fixed for the interview test and twenty (20) marks for performance appraisal report. So far as the promotion/appointment to the post of Scale I officer is concerned, Clause 3 provides that 50% shall be appointed by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion and that promotions shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
5. In the case of direct recruitment, the selection of candidates shall be made by the Banking Services Recruitment Board on the basis of written test and interview, while in the case of promotion, the selection of the candidates shall be made by the Committee on the basis of written test, interview and performance appraisal report. The composition of the Committee is the same as in the case of promotion/appointment to the post of Scale II officer but 70 marks have been prescribed on the basis of the written test, 20 marks have been allotted for interview and the remaining 10 marks for performance appraisal report.
6. In the year 2001, 47 posts of Scale II officer and 16 posts of Scale I officer were required to be filled in Gramin Bank. The Board of Directors of Gramin Bank in its meeting held on 20-9-2001 approved the holding of the written examination by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “the Banking Institute, Mumbai”). A circular was issued on 9-7-2002, fixing 18-8-2002 as the date on which the written test was stated to be held. All the appellants appeared in the written test without any protest on any ground whatsoever.
7. It appears from the record that one Mr Tiwary, Director of Gramin Bank on 22-10-2001 made a complaint to the Finance Minister, Government of India, giving details of corruption and financial irregularities committed by the officers of Gramin Bank. On 25-6-2002, the Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank Officers' and Workers' Organisation is alleged to have submitted a complaint to the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, against the Chairman of Gramin Bank.
8. The appellants filed writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad praying for quashing of the test held on 18-8-2002, inter alia, on the ground that the test was conducted by the then Chairman of Gramin Bank, Shri Zameer Hasan, Respondent 10 herein, in spite of the fact that his real brother, Syed Mohd. Rizvi and cousin, Kazim Hussain Rizvi who were working as clerk-cum-cashiers, were also the candidates for promotion to the post of Officer Scale I. Respondent 10 on 28-5-2004 was transferred as General Manager of Gramin Bank, Deoria, but he still declared the result of the examination on 1-6-2004.
9. The State Government appointed an inquiry committee consisting of two officers of the Directorate of Institutional Finance, Lucknow. The Committee submitted its report on 18-7-2004 which was forwarded to Gramin Bank by the Secretary, Banking Department, Government of U.P through Communication dated 27-7-2004. The appellants prayed that in view of the report submitted against improper functioning and acts of commission and omission of the officers/officials of Gramin Bank, the examinations should be cancelled and fresh examinations be conducted.
10. The record reveals that after the written test was held on 18-8-2002 the Workers' Association of Gramin Bank filed a civil suit in which an injunction was granted by the trial court as a result of which, the result of the written test could not be declared and it was only on 31-5-2004 when the trial court rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction that the candidates could be called for interview for the post of Officer Scale II and Officer Scale I after declaration of the result of the written test by the Chairman of Gramin Bank on 2-6-2004 and 7-6-2004 respectively. The names of the appellants did not appear in the said list. The writ petition was filed on 17-9-2004 when the High Court, in view of the Report dated 18-7-2004 while granting time to the respondents in the writ petition to file a counter-affidavit, ordered that the process of selection may go on but no appointments be made. The interviews were subsequently held on 23-9-2004 and 24-9-2004 respectively.
11. The stand of Gramin Bank before the High Court in its counter-affidavit was that the written examination was conducted by the Banking Institute, Mumbai after the approval of the Board of Directors of Gramin Bank; the inquiry conducted by the Committee was ex parte since no information was sought for by the members of the Committee from Gramin Bank and even otherwise, the State Government has no authority or power to exercise any control over Gramin Bank since under Section 29 of the Act, the Bank is governed by the policies of the Central Government. Gramin Bank also stated that the alleged report has not pointed out any infirmity in the process of conducting the written examination and promotions to the key posts had been stalled to the detriment of the interest of Gramin Bank initially because of the injunction granted by the civil court which was vacated on 31-5-2004 and thereafter the process was completed. The first appeal from the order filed against the rejection of application was dismissed by the High Court on 16-9-2004. It was contended that the writ petition would suffer from delay and laches.
12. In the High Court, four successful candidates, namely, Ashok Kumar, Rajendra Babu, Satyendra Kumar Srivastava and Ravi Pratap Singh filed impleadment applications which were allowed by the High Court. The newly added respondents filed detailed counter-affidavits. The parties have completed their pleadings.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire record, the High Court has not found any substance in the writ petition of the appellants and accordingly dismissed the same, inter alia, holding that the Banking Institute, Mumbai, an examining body, was not a party in writ petition; the appellants have failed to prove allegation of mala fides against Shri Zameer Hasan, the then Chairman of Gramin Bank; the appellants are estopped from challenging the examination held on 18-8-2002 as they had participated in the said examination; the appellants are members of the Workers' Union which filed the suit in the trial court and as such the appellants are playing hide-and-seek with the Court and the inquiry report does not indicate that the examination was vitiated due to influence of Shri Zameer Hasan, Respondent 10. Hence, the appellants have filed this appeal questioning the correctness and validity of the judgment of the High Court.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the entire material on record. Mr Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Chandra Prakash Singh, Appellant 1, vehemently contended that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the appellants have failed to prove allegations of mala fides or bias against Respondent 10 in the face of the report submitted by the Committee appointed by the State Government which creates some cloud and a real likelihood of bias on the part of Respondent 10, who, at the relevant time, was Chairman of Gramin Bank having some influence over the Institute in helping his brother and cousin in the selection for the posts in question. He submitted that as there existed a doubt, which is required to be cleared, Gramin Bank being a statutory independent body in all its fairness, ought to have held some independent inquiry to the complaint made by the appellants and others in regard to the selection of the candidates in an arbitrary and unfair manner by the Institute which conducted the examination. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 161, (2007) 14 Scale 125.
15. We have gone through the judgment in which it has been held that the decision-making process should veer round the question in regard to the lack of bona fides or an act of arbitrariness on the part of the State. If lack of bona fides or arbitrariness on the part of the State is proved, whether the right is considered to be a vested or accrued right, or otherwise a negative right, the superior court may exercise its power of judicial review. The judicial intervention would, thus, be possible only when a finding of fact is arrived at in regard to the aforementioned acts of omissions and commission on the part of the State and not otherwise. In our view, there cannot be any quarrel or dispute in regard to the abovementioned proposition of law, but the law has to be applied in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the fact situation is totally different and, therefore, this decision is of no assistance to Appellant 1.
16. Mr Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of Appellants 2 to 8, contended that the appellants have proved on record that the written examination stood vitiated because the test was conducted by Respondent 10 in which his real brother and cousin also appeared for promotion to the post of Officer Scale I. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon the Report dated 18-7-2004 submitted by a committee of two officers which was communicated to Gramin Bank by the Secretary, Banking Department, by his Letter dated 27-7-2004.
17. He also submitted that the bias of Respondent 10 is writ large on the face of the record as the result of the written test was declared on 1-6-2004 by Shri Zameer Hasan as Chairman of Gramin Bank in spite of the fact that he took transfer on 28-5-2004. He next contended that the question papers set by the Banking Institute, Mumbai, were kept by Respondent 10 in his custody although as per practice the question papers were to be kept in the custody of two officers of the Bank and the answer sheets were also kept by him in his custody before dispatching them to the Institute for evaluation which were dispatched by a private courier and not through the postal services.
18. He further contended that one of the relatives of Respondent 10, namely, Syed Md. Rizvi, was on medical leave during the period when the written examination was conducted, but still he was permitted to appear in the examination which would show that the selection of the candidates for the promotion to the posts in question was processed in hot haste manner with mala fide intention and with sole object to get Shri Syed Md. Rizvi and Shri Kazim Hussain Rizvi, the real brother and cousin of Respondent 10, selected.
19. According to the learned counsel, the said instances are sufficient to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellants that there was likelihood of bias of Respondent 10, who might have influenced the examination body to get his near relatives selected in the written test. Thus, the High Court has failed to appreciate the factual situation and legal aspect of the matter in proper perspective/manner. In support of the submissions, reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 and Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 165, (1994) 27 ATC 547.
20. In order to appreciate the contentions of the appellants, we have gone through both the said decisions. In Ashok Kumar Yadav case (1985) 4 SCC 417, two members of the Haryana PSC did not participate in the interview and had retired from the room when the interviews of their respective relatives were held. Moreover, neither of them took any part in any discussion in regard to the merits of his relatives nor was there anything brought on record to show that the marks or credits obtained by their respective relatives at the interview were disclosed to them. The Court was, thus, of the view that there was no infirmity attached to the selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission. This Court stated that one of the fundamental principles of our jurisprudence is that no man can be a judge in his own cause. The question is not whether the judge is actually biased or in fact decides partially but whether the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision. If there is a reasonable likelihood of bias it is “in accordance with natural justice and common sense that the justice likely to be so biased should be incapacitated from sitting” (Ashok Kumar Yadav case (1985) 4 SCC 417). The basic principle underlying this rule is that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. The Court further held that this rule is not confined to cases where judicial power stricto sensu is exercised. It is appropriately extended to all cases where an independent mind has to be applied to arrive at a fair and just decision between the rival claims of parties. Since the instrumentalities of the State are expected to discharge their functions in a fair and just manner the applicability of this rule is extended to the decision-making process of a Selection Committee constituted for selecting personnel for service in such instrumentalities. Further, it is held that if a Selection Committee is constituted for the purpose of selecting candidates on merits and one of the members of the Selection Committee is closely related to a candidate appearing for the selection, it would not be enough for such member merely to withdraw from participation in the interview of the candidate related to him but he must withdraw altogether from the entire selection process and ask the authorities to nominate another person in his place on the Selection Committee, because otherwise all the selections made would be vitiated on account of reasonable likelihood of bias affecting the process of selection.
21. In Krishan Yadav case (1994) 4 SCC 165, (1994) 27 ATC 547, the selection of Taxation Inspectors by the Subordinate Selection Board was set aside being vitiated by fraud and arbitrariness on the basis of accepting the CBI report. In the said case, serious allegations were made against the Selection Board which was referred by the Supreme Court of India to CBI for investigation. The CBI report revealed acts of favouritism, selections without interview as also on the basis of fake or ghost interviews, tampering with final records, fabrication of documents, forgery, keeping the selection list a secret, issuing appointment letters after calling selected candidates and obtaining joining reports from them on the spot without any medical test and verification of antecedents and destroying the original records including the answer books. On the basis of these serious allegations against the Selection Board, which were found to be genuine and truthful by CBI during the investigation, this Court set aside the entire selection being vitiated by fraud, nepotism and arbitrariness.
22. Dr. Dhruv Mehta, Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 to 6 and Respondent 10 Shri Zameer Hasan, ex-Chairman/General Manager, on the other hand, made submissions in support of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. He contended that the allegation of bias or mala fide alleged by the appellants against Respondent 10 is vague and irresponsible which is not established by the appellants by leading any evidence in support thereof. He contended that the examination for promotion to the post of Officer Scale I from the clerk cadre as well as promotion to the post of Scale II was conducted by the Banking Institute, Mumbai, a body duly approved by Reserve Bank of India and promoted by All India Commissioner, Banks and not by Respondent 10, the then Chairman of Gramin Bank and the list of successful candidates for interview to the post was published by the Chairman vide order dated 2-6-2004 and subsequently the list of successful candidates for interview to the post of Officer Scale I was published by the General Manager of Gramin Bank vide order dated 7-6-2004.
23. He submitted that the inquiry got conducted by the State Government through its agency, was totally against the provisions of the law as Gramin Bank has been established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 which is an instrumentality of the Central Government and, therefore, the State Government has no control whatsoever over Gramin Bank to order an inquiry. He contended that no allegation of change of answer sheets or manipulation of the marks has been alleged or pleaded by the appellants in the writ petition and no supporting evidence except bald assertion of mala fide has been alleged against Respondent 10 by the appellants nor any allegation of bias or mala fide has been alleged against the Examination Committee or the Selection Committee consisting of one Director of the sponsor bank and one Director of the national bank, who interviewed the selected candidates whose names were sponsored by the Examination Committee.
24. Mr M.N Krishnamani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent 15, submitted that the appellants have not made any allegation regarding the promotion of the selected candidates from Scale I to Scale II, therefore, there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment of the High Court which requires interference by this Court. In a nutshell, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents including some of the selected candidates have contended that the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court. In support of their contentions, the learned counsel have placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. V.K Khanna (2001) 2 SCC 330 and the recent judgment of this Court in Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 8 SCC 418.
25. In State of Punjab v. V.K Khanna (2001) 2 SCC 330, this Court held that the concept of fairness in administrative action has been the subject-matter of considerable judicial debate but there is total unanimity on the basic element of the concept to the effect that the same is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each matter pending scrutiny before the Court and no straitjacket formula can be evolved therefor. Further, it is stated that as a matter of fact, fairness is synonymous with reasonableness and on the issue of ascertainment of meaning of reasonableness, in common English parlance it is referred to as what is in contemplation of an ordinary man of prudence similarly placed—it is the appreciation of this common man's perception in its proper perspective which would prompt the court to determine the situation as to whether the same is otherwise reasonable or not. Similarly, the existence of mala fide intent or biased attitude cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, it is said that whereas fairness is synonymous with reasonableness—bias stands included within the attributes and broader purview of the word “malice” which in common acceptation means and implies “spite” or “ill will”. Mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill will. There must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether, in fact, there was a bias or a mala fide move which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. It is also held that the test of bias is as to whether there is a mere apprehension of bias or there is a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom. In the event, however, the conclusion is otherwise that there exists a real danger of bias, administrative action cannot be sustained. If on the other hand, allegations pertain to rather fanciful apprehension in administrative action, the question of declaring them to be unsustainable on the basis thereof, would not arise.
26. In Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 8 SCC 418, this Court dealing with the question of mala fide exercise of power, held as under:(a-b)
“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’. In the present case, except alleging that the policy was altered by the Government to extend the benefit to IGL, no material whatsoever was placed on record by the appellant. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that the impugned action was mala fide or malicious.”
27. In the light of the abovesaid settled law, we have examined the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Board of Directors of Gramin Bank in its meeting held on 20-9-2001 approved the holding of the written examination for promotion by the Banking Institute, Mumbai for 47 posts of Scale II officers and 16 posts of Scale I officers. A circular to that effect was issued on 9-7-2002 fixing 18-8-2002 as the date on which the written test was scheduled to be held. The appellants appeared in the written test but they could not qualify the test. Shri Zameer Hasan, Respondent 10, at the relevant time, was the Chairman of Gramin Bank whereas Respondents 2, 3 and 5 to 9 were the Directors of Gramin Bank. Shri J.K Lahri, Respondent 4 was the Director of Gramin Bank as nominee of State Bank of India and Shri D.P Sanda, Respondent 11 was the Director of Banking Institute, Mumbai.
28. The merit list of the successful candidates was prepared by the Banking Institute, Mumbai which was sent to Gramin Bank. The list containing the names of the selected candidates was placed on the noticeboard by Respondent 10 being Chairman of the Bank on 1-6-2004. In between the holding of the written test on 18-8-2002 and placing the selected list of the successful candidates on the noticeboard on 1-6-2004, there was an interim injunction order operating against Gramin Bank not to declare the result passed by the civil court in suit filed by the Workers' Association of Gramin Bank which was subsequently vacated on 31-5-2004 permitting Gramin Bank to hold the interview for the post of Officer Scale II and Officer Scale I after declaration of the result of the written test. Respondent 10 was transferred on 28-5-2004 as General Manager of Gramin Bank, Deorai, but he had not relinquished the charge till the date of declaring the result of the written test. It is also established on record that on 7-6-2004, the successor Chairman of Respondent 10 placed the same merit list of the successful candidates on the noticeboard for the inspection of the candidates. The names of the appellants herein did not appear in the said select list. The personal interviews of the successful candidates were held on 23-9-2004 and 24-9-2004.
29. The inquiry ordered to be conducted by the State Government in regard to the mismanagement and other irregularities, etc. of Gramin Bank, was ex parte without giving any intimation to the Board of Directors of Gramin Bank. The State Government ex facie does not exercise any control over Gramin Bank since under Section 29 of the Act, Gramin Bank is governed by the policies of the Central Government. The High Court in its judgment has observed that the report submitted by the members of the Committee appointed by the State Government did not point out any infirmity in the conduct of the written examination. The appellants have not made the Banking Institute, Mumbai, who conducted the examination, as a party in the writ petition nor any allegation of mala fides or malpractice has been alleged against the Institute. The appellants have also not made Shri Syed Md. Rizvi, brother and Shri Kazim Hussain Rizvi, cousin, respectively of Respondent 10 as parties in the writ petition who, admittedly, were the successful candidates in the written test for the posts in question. The written test was not conducted by Respondent 10 nor was he heading the Selection Committee.
30. All that has been alleged in Paras 11 and 14 of the writ petition by the appellants reads as under:
“11. That the written test was held on 18-8-2002 which was conducted by Opposite Party 10, who was the officiating Chairman of the Bank at that time.
14. That it was specifically mentioned in the abovementioned complaints that Opposite Party 10 was making grounds for promoting his real brother and his cousin, namely, Syed Md. Rizvi and Kazim Hussain Rizvi, who are already employed in the Bank as clerk-cum-cashier and he wanted their promotion to Officer Scale I.”
The above extracted allegations are absolutely vague, indefinite and did not contain sufficient material as required under law in support thereof. The appellants have not established on record that Respondent 10 Shri Zameer Hasan, the then Chairman, was an instrument in getting his brother and cousin through in the written examination and later on it was under his influence that the Selection Committee had selected his two relatives for the posts in question.
31. In addition to the decisions referred to above, this Court in Tara Chand Khatri v. MCD (1977) 1 SCC 472, AIR 1977 SC 567, E.P Royappa v. State of T.N (1974) 4 SCC 3, AIR 1974 SC 555 and Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab (1982) 1 SCC 31, AIR 1982 SC 65 held that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The court, would, therefore, be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in administration. Such is the judicial perspective in evaluating charges of unworthy conduct against ministers and others, not because of any special status … but because otherwise, functioning effectively would become difficult in a democracy.
32. In M. Sankaranarayanan v. State of Karnataka (1993) 1 SCC 54, (1993) 23 ATC 412, AIR 1993 SC 763 this Court observed that the Court may:
“draw reasonable inference of mala fide from the facts pleaded and established. But such inference must be based on factual matrix and such factual matrix cannot remain in the realm of insinuation, surmise or conjecture.”
33. In N.K Singh v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 98, (1994) 28 ATC 246 this Court held that the inference of mala fides be drawn by reading in between the lines and taking into account the attendant circumstances.
34. Thus, as a proposition of law, the burden of proving mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. Mere allegation is not enough. Party making such allegations is under the legal obligation to place specific materials before the court to substantiate the said allegations. There has to be very strong and convincing evidence to establish the allegations of mala fides specifically and definitely alleged in the petition as the same cannot merely be presumed. The presumption under law is in favour of the bona fides of the order unless contradicted by acceptable material.
35. In the present case, no specific and definite real danger of bias has been made against Respondent 10 to indicate how he was in a position to influence or manipulate the result of the written test conducted by the Banking Institute, Mumbai. There are no specific pleadings nor any proof thereof in the writ petition filed by the appellants. In such circumstances, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas of mala fide or arbitrariness. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the light of the settled law, we agree with the reasoning recorded by the High Court that there are no proper pleadings nor is there any other evidence brought on record by the appellants to substantiate the sweeping, bald and unfounded allegation of mala fides alleged against Respondent 10 Shri Zameer Hasan.
36. The two-member Committee appointed by the State Government in its report made certain observations that Shri Zameer Hasan, Respondent 10 had declared the result of the written test on 1-6-2004, despite the fact that he stood transferred on 28-5-2004, the answer sheets should not have been sent to the Banking Institute, Mumbai, by courier service and the answer sheets and the question papers were not kept in the joint custody, but Respondent 10 had kept them in his own custody and that one candidate had appeared at the examination even though he was on leave are not substantiated by any evidence.
37. It is a fact that Respondent 10 has not filed any independent counter to the writ petition, but the respondent Gramin Bank in its counter has answered and explained each and every paragraph of the writ petition. It was the case of the respondent Gramin Bank before the High Court that Shri Zameer Hasan, Respondent 10 was relieved from the post on 1-6-2004 and the list of the successful candidates submitted by the Banking Institute, Mumbai, to Gramin Bank, was placed on the noticeboard on 2-6-2004 by Respondent 10 which was again circulated by the successor Chairman on 7-6-2004. The candidate, who was on medical leave, in fact had appeared in the written examination during his leave period. The mere assertion of the appellants that one selected candidate could not have appeared in the written test, because during the relevant time he was on leave, in the absence of any supporting evidence cannot be accepted.
38. Further, no infirmity or illegality appears to have been committed by the then Chairman, Gramin Bank, by sending the answer books to the Banking Institute, Mumbai, by courier service. Gramin Bank has categorically stated that the question papers and answer sheets were kept in the joint custody of the Chairman and one Director of the Bank. The report submitted by the State Committee also did not indicate in any manner whatsoever that there was some fault with the written examination. There is no averment whatsoever in the report which may indicate that the list of the successful candidates was not in accordance with the merits of the candidates prepared by the examining body.
39. We are, however, satisfied on the material placed before us that the appellants have been given fair treatment in the written test held by the Institute but as they had failed to qualify the test, they, on any legitimate ground, cannot be permitted to allege wholly unfounded, irresponsible and uncalled for allegations of favouritism or mala fide against Respondent 10. For the lack of specific and definite allegations of mala fides in the writ petition supported by the evidence in proof of such facts of mala fides, the writ petition of the appellants has been rightly rejected by the High Court. We find no fault or infirmity or perversity in the reasoning of the High Court warranting interference in this appeal.
40. For the abovesaid reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.