Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
Before :
A.A. Halbe S.G. Mutalik, JJ.
Shri Dnyandeo Dattatraya Kale and others.... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 2892 2900 of 1991 with W.P. Nos. 24 460 of 1992, decided on 18-10-1994.
Advocates appeared :
K.G. Gawali, R.T. Sharma, R.M. Karale, A.D. Khillare, M.S. Gunjal, N.P. Darandale and D.R. Jaybhar, for petitioners, of W.P. No. 2892 of 1991 in W.P. No.24 of 1992 W.P. No. 460 of 1992.
R.G. Karmarkar, for petitioners in W.P. No. 2900 of 1991.
M.S. Pathak, S.C., for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, of W.P. No. 2892 of 1991 in W.P. No. 2900 of 1991 in W.P. No. 24 of 1992 W.P. No. 460 of 1992.
K.K. Sanghavi, with S.B. Mhase, and C.K. Shinde, for respondent No. 8, of W.P. No. 2892 of 1991, for respondent No.2 in W.P. No. 2900 of 1991 W.P. No. 24 of 1992.
A.V. Bukhari, with Anil H.Kasliwal, for respondent Nos. 9 to 131 to 138, 140 to 142, 144 to 283, 285 to 297, 299 to 403, 405 to 440, 442 to 455, 457 to 511, 513 to 571 in W.P. No. 2892 of 1991, for respondent Nos. 4 to 11, 13 to 23, 25 to 50, 51, 52 to 55, 57 to 98, 100 to 110, 112, 126, 128 to 133, 135, 137, 405, 407 to 410, 412 to 433, 435 to 437, 439, 440, 442 to 446, 448 to 450, 452 to 470, 472 to 506, 508 to 534, 536 to 538, 540, 542 to 544, 546 to 556 in W.P. No. 2900 of 1991, for respondent Nos. 4 to 43, 45 to 126, 127, 128 to 137, 139 to 235, 237 to 248, 250 to 292, 294 to 366, 367, 368 to 435, 437 to 441, 443 to 450, 452 to 455, 457 to 486, 488 to 500, 502 to 503, 505, 506, 508 to 540, 541, 542 to 566 in W.P. No. 24 of 1992, for respondent Nos. 5 to 127, 129 to 134, 135, 136 to 138, 140 to 293, 295 to 322, 324 to 355, 357 to 436, 438 to 451, 453 to 484, 485, 486 to 507, 509 to 567 in W.P. No. 460 of 1992.
M.S. Bokitkar, for respondent No. 476 in W.P. No. 2892 of 1991.
S.S. Choudhari, for intervenors Nos. 1 to 4 in W.P. No. 2892 of 1991.
Articles 5 and 16-Petition-Recrnitment in Co-operative Bank Societies -Discrimination in male and female is appointment-Bank not State-Mandamus be not issued-Mandamus lies performance of public duty Merit of candidate interviewed-Compliance in law-Females appointment-Constitutional violation does not prohibit Stale to discriminate on such ground-Candidate served more than 2 or 3 years selection can not be set aside-Petition dismissed.
Article 12.
See Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961-Section 2 (6),
Article 226.
See Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961-Sections 71, 73 and 79A.
Articles 12 and 226-Mahamshtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Sections 50, 72, 73, 78, 79 and 79-A- Co-operative Bank-Run on its capital under certain directions Registrar/Government - No effective participation of Government indicated in bye-laws.
It be not a State or instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution-Large scale recruitment if done by Bank, it be not any statutory or public duty work-Fairness of selection and compliance of Rules shown by records/evidence-Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Section 35.
Article 225-Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Sections 72, 73 and 79-A-Evidence Act, 1872, Section 115-Co-operative Bank recruitment.
District Deputy Register of Societies associated with selection throughout and Government directions for reserved vacancies already complied with -No allegation can be raised by Government that permission for not taken.
Section 115.
See Constitution of India, Article 226.
Section 2 (6)-Constitution of India, Article 12.
State and State instrumentality under Article 12, Constitution. District Central Co-operative Bank neither State nor Slate instrumentality.
Sections 50, 72, 73, 78 and 79-A.
See Constitution of India-Articles 12 and 226,
Sections 71, 73 and 79-A-Constitution or India, Article 226.
Recruitment process of appointing clerical staff-Gross irregularities and favoritism alleged against Bank in and allegation vague, exaggsrated and not supported by cogent evidence-Hence, challenge cannot be sustained.
Sections 72, 73-Bombay Judicial Relations Act, 1947, Section 35 Schedule 1-Constitution of India, Article 226-Mandamus writ-Issuance of Whether in instant ease it can he issued?
Section 72, 73 and 79-A.
See Constitution of India-Article 226.
2. The petitioners have sought for cancellation of selection and appointment of 481 clerks and 82 peons by respondent No. 8 - The Ahmednagar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. - in the month of August, 1991 on the ground that the interviews that were held were nothing but a farce; that the selection of the candidates for the posts of clerks and peons had already been secretly planned by the Directors of the Bank; that women folk was not invited for the interviews and thus there was practice of sex discrimination and accordingly, the said selection and appointment of the clerks and peons were contrary to the constitutional mandate. The further prayer is that the study group consisting of eminent citizens should be appointed and ways and means of recruitment should be devised and accordingly, the selection should take place by the Committee of those persons. There should be appointed a Co-operative Service Selection Board on the same lines of Sub-ordinate Selection Boards and that would ensure fair, free and unbiased selection of meritorious candidates.
3. It may be stated that the main writ petition that is argued before us is Writ Petition No. 2892 of 1991 wherein the necessary affidavits and documents have been tendered. The documents and affidavits in other writ petitions, which are not taken up for consideration, but which are rather common to all these writ petitions, shall be considered while discussing the merits of these writ petitions. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 claimed to have sponsored this Writ Petition No. 2892 of 1991 as social workers whereas petitioner No. 3 has joined this petition because he was not selected although interviewed. The petitioner No. 2 is a practising lawyer at Ahmednagar. She is mainly interested in social work aimed at promoting the cause of women folk. Petitioner No. 3 passed his B.Sc. examination and claims that he was fully eligible for selection to the post of Clerk with respondent No. 8 Bank but was wrongfully bye-passed.
4. The respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra. The respondent No. 2 is the Secretary, Co-operative Department in the Government of Maharashtra. The respondent No. 3 is the Social Welfare Secretary in the State Government whereas respondent No. 4 is the Secretary in the Employment Department of the State Government. Respondent No. 5 - Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank is the Apex Co-operative Bank registered under the Co-operative Societies Act whereas respondent No. 6 has been impleaded since it is the Maharashtra Sakhar Sangh registered under the Societies Registration Act and also under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The respondent No. 7 is the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development whereas respondent No. 8 is the Ahmednagar District Central Co-operative Bank, which is registered as a Co-operative society under the Co-operative Societies Act.
5. According to the petitioners, NABARD has been established for providing credit for promotion of agriculture, small scale industries etc. for the purpose of securing the integrated rural development and prosperity of rural areas. The respondent No. 15 - Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank is under the control of respondent No. 7 - NABARD - whereas respondent No. 8 is financed by NABARD to the extent of crores of rupees in the form of loans and advances. According to the petitioners, respondent
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
