Khanwilkar, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive notice through their respective Counsel.

2. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent. Heard Counsel appearing for the parties, including the interventionists in the companion petition, which has been disposed of today by a separate order.

3. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily, challenges the recruitment policy of the respondent–Bank dated 5.3.2009 – of permitting filling of vacancies in Officers cadre earmarked for direct recruits through campus interview or campus recruitment process. The petitioners assert that they possess requisite qualifications and are eligible to be appointed against the vacant posts in the respondent – Bank, as per its recruitment policy dated 5.3.2009.

4. The petitioners have filed this petition on 26.11.2012, after becoming aware about the pendency of other petitions in this Court challenging the selfsame recruitment policy that allows filling of vacancies earmarked for direct recruits through campus interview being contrary to the settled legal position expounded by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma D