IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was not maintainable as the respondent authority was not amenable under the writ jurisdiction as it was not considered a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the recruitment/selection procedure of respondents No.2 to 5 as clerk in the Bank since the same is null and void and is followed without due procedure of law.

2. Brief facts of the present petition are that one of the Director of the Bank wrote a letter to respondent No.8 requesting to direct the Bank to furnish details of recruitment for the post of clerk and the Director had submitted an application in the meeting of the Board of Directors for furnishing details of recruitment, which came to be denied by respondents No.6 and 7. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.7 has addressed a letter to the Board of Directors that they cannot furnish information in view of Sections 84 and 33 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. It is the case of the petitioner that he sent a legal notice to respondent No.7 and other Board of Directors for cancellation of selection procedure and for taking legal action against respondents No.2 to 5. That respondent No.8 wrote a letter to respondent No.7 stating to furnish documents in respect of recruitment and selection within three days and that the Registrar of the Societies addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary of the Agricultural and Cooperation Department along with the letter of the Director of the Bank in respect of selection of respondents No.2 to 5. The Jilla Registrar of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies addressed a letter to respondent No.7 stating that they have not furnished information for selection and the petitioner wrote a letter to respondent No.8 stating that the officers of the Bank have sent the application for amending the bye-laws to respondent No.8. That petitioner wrote a letter to respondents No.6 and 7 regarding removal of respondents No.2 to 5 from post of clerk and also wrote a letter to respondent No.6 requesting to furnish documents with regard to selection and despite of such request, respondent – authority took a decision for recruitment of respondents No.2 to 5 and neither notice or resolution was passed nor framed committee for appointment of respondents No.2 to 5. The respondent No.5 wrote a letter to the petitioner and informed him that as and when he intended to come and see necessary documents in the bank, he can come. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire selection process was done by the respondent authority without following due process and selection norms and huge corruption and illegality were made by respondent Bank in selection process of respondents No.2 to 5.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the selection procedure on the part of the respondent – authorities, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.

4. Heard Mr. Vijay Nangesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms.Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 and 8 and Mr.R. C. Jani, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

5. Mr.Vijay Nangesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner has asked the details from the respondent – Bank with regard to the educational qualifications and selection of the persons who appointed, such details was not furnished to the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and according to him, they have been appointed without following due procedure. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the names ought to have been called for from the employment exchange however, without calling for the names from the employment exchange the appointments have been effected. He would submit that such irregularity was brought to the notice of the District Registrar who, in turn, has addressed a communication to the respondent no. 6, however, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 have not provided the instruc