Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.R. Shriram, Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.
Sonali Shivram Dupare and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Thane District Central Co-operative Bank and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.3963 of 2018
Decided On : 04-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Irvin D’Souza i/b Mr. Sugandh B Deshmukh
For the Respondent: Dr. D.S. Hatle a/w Mr. Deepak Jamsandekar, Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP, Mr. E.A. Sasi
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 12, 14, 19(1), 21, 226 – Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1970 – Section 79A – Offence of Maintainability – Freedom of speech and expression - Equal recognition before the law – Protection of life and personal liberty – Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before law or equal protection of laws within territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth – Whether there were any irregularities in recruitment process – Held, Court clarify that court have set aside recruitment process only with regard to Senior Bank Assistant and Junior Bank Assistant – Court also clarify that all those who had applied for recruitment process shall be permitted to reapply and any age restriction to that candidate shall be relaxed – Court also clarify that any more candidates who wish to apply may apply in response to fresh advertisement that respondent shall issue but for them age restriction as per recruitment rule, will certainly apply – Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
K. R. SHRIRAM, J.
1. Petition, though listed for admission today, with the consent of the parties is taken up for final hearing in view of the order passed by the Apex Court on 7th May 2018 which had directed this court to expedite the hearing of this Writ Petition and dispose the same expeditiously. The Apex Court has also directed the authorities concerned and the Bank, i.e., respondent no.1, in case any appointment is made, to make it explicitly clear in the offer of appointment that the appointment is made subject to the result of Writ Petition No.3963 of 2018, i.e. the petition at hand.
2. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard.
3. Initially, petition was filed by five individuals against respondent nos.1 to 4. Subsequently, with the leave of the court the name of original petitioner nos. 2 and 5 were deleted. Respondent no.5 was also added.
4. Petitioners have approached this court aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent nos.2 and 4, i.e., The District Deputy Registrar, Thane District Co-operative Societies and State of Maharashtra, Co-operative Department, to stay and cancel the recruitment process started by respondent no.1-The Thane District Central Co-operative Bank, on the basis that mass illegalities have been committed by respondent no.1 during the recruitment process for various posts including Officers, Senior Banking Assistant, Junior Banking Assistant, Peon and Watchmen etc. Mr. Anturkar submitted that the petition is restricted to recruitment by respondent no.1 in the post of Senior Banking Assistant and Junior Banking Assistant.
5. Respondent no.1 is a co-operative society and is the District Central Co-op Bank as also banking company. Respondent no.1 is governed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1970 (the said Act) and under the provisions of Section 79A of the said Act, the State Government has power to give directions to respondent no.1 in public interest.
Respondent no.1, on or about 16th October 2017, issued advertisement for various posts including for Senior Banking Assistant and Junior Banking Assistant. The other posts for which advertisement was issued were for Officers, Peons, Watchmen etc. A total of 211 posts were advertised. Petitioner no.1 had applied for Senior Banking Assistant and Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had applied for Junior Banking Assistant post. Petitioners participated in the recruitment process and also attended written examination. Petitioners were not selected for the post. Petitioners have approached this court saying that gross irregularities have been committed in the recruitment process and petitioners are only three out of the many victims of irregularities in the recruitment process. From affidavit of respondent no.1, it appears that over 15,000 candidates had participated in the recruitment process for 211 posts.
6. It is petitioners’ case that respondents did not strictly follow the guide lines given by the State Level Task Force(SLTF). According to petitioners, some of the irregularities are : (a) the name of the candidate was required to be mentioned in the answer sheet which was not permissible; (b) question papers were not sealed and Optical Mark Reading (OMR) was not followed; (c) the answer sheets were not scanned immediately, etc,. Respondent no.1, of course, has denied the allegations in the petition and a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition has also been raised stating that respondent no.1 is not a State. It is also respondent no.1’s case that they have strictly followed the guide lines laid down by the State Level Task Force on recruitment process. Respondent no.5, which was the agency appointed to conduct the recruitment process has also filed an affidavit stating that there was no wrong doing and that it had strictly followed the guidelines.
7. The issues in short to be decided, therefore, are:
(i) the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Hatle on maintainability;
(ii) whether there were any irregula
