( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal has been admitted on 19-9- 2005 to consider following substantial question of law. 1) Whether Respondent No. 1 Bank is a State within the meaning of article-12 of the Constitution of India?

( 2 ) THE facts which gave rise to the present appeal are as under : the appellant/original plaintiff Sunil Chatarpal Kedar is a Civil Engineer who was appointed as Engineer/officer Grade-I in the respondent Bank in July, 1990 and was confirmed in 1991. On 22-7-1994 the plaintiff had written a letter to his employer stating that he was entitled to a promotion to the post of Deputy chief Officer according to his seniority. He made a representation again on 18-9-1994. Since his representations were not considered he filed Regular Civil Suit no. 1530 of 1994 before Civil Judge Jr. Dn. at Nagpur. He contended that juniors who were appointed as officers after him were considered for the post of Deputy chief Officer, resulting in violation of principle of equality and subjecting him to discrimination. His legitimate claim was unnecessarily denied by the respondent. The action of the respondent was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. He therefore, sought a declaration that he was entitled to be considered for promotion, a direction to consider him; and an injunction to restrain Bank from appointing others to the post of Deputy Chief Officer.

( 3 ) IN response to the suit summons the defendant Bank appeared and resisted the claim stating that the plaintiff was in fact appointed as a Civil Engineer in a technical cadre. The plaintiff would be entitled to the promotion in the technical cadre itself, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to be considered for the post of deputy Chief Officer for which interviews were held in July, 1994. It was therefore, stated that the Bank had not acted illegally or arbitrarily and had not discriminated against the plaintiff. It therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

( 4 ) UPON consideration of the evidence tendered before him, the learned 3rd joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn. came to dismiss the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed appeal before the District Court. The District Court held in favour of the plaintiff concluding that the impugned action of the Bank was violative of equal opportunity guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondent Bank filed second appeal which was entertained as appeal bearing no. 20 of 2000 before this Court. The matter was heard finally at the stage of admission itself. It was observed that unless it is held that the person or authority causing discrimination is "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India, question of violation of Articles 14 and 16 would not arise. Consequently, this Court remanded the matter back to the District Court for examining, whether the defendant Bank is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) UPON remand, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge heard the parties on the question, whether the respondent Bank was State within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India, and concluded that the respondent Bank was not State and hence, disposed of the appeal. As a corollary the plaintiff would be non-suited. Aggrieved by this judgment, dated 13-7-2001, the original plaintiff preferred this second appeal, which, as already recounted, was admitted on 19-9-2005 to consider the question, whether the respondent Bank is State within the meaning of Article 12.

( 6 ) I have heard Shri Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri v. G. Wankhade, learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent maharashtra State Co-operative Bank is an Apex Bank for the entire State of maharashtra, as far as Co-operative Banking sector is concerned. It has all trappings of the State. The bye-laws and other documents of the Bank, which were placed on record, show that the Sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document