The Bombay High Court set aside the entire recruitment process of Senior Bank Assistant and Junior Bank Assistant of Thane District due to the finding that the competent authorities committed gross irregularities in the conduction. This Court held this Petition maintainable against Respondent no. 1 as well in view of the fact that they acted as per the directions given by Respondent no. 2 which falls under the definition of “state” under Article 12 of the constitution.
Brief Facts:
The present Petition was filed being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of Respondent nos.2 and 4 to stay and cancel the recruitment process started by Respondent no.1 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. The Petitioner had the same grievance 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. There were two issues raised for consideration in this Petition-
- Whether the current Petition is maintainable against Respondent no. 1 which is not a state under Article 12?
- Were there any irregularities in recruitment process and if there were, what should be the outcome?
Submissions of the Petitioner:
It was the case of the Petitioner that Respondents did not strictly follow the guide lines given by the State Level Task Force (SLTF). According to petitioners, some of the irregularities were:
(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
Submission of the Respondent:
The Respondent denied all the allegations and raised their Preliminary objection on the maintainability of the Petition by submitting that Respondent no.1 is not a “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution. Further, it was submitted that they have strictly followed the guidelines laid down by the State Level Task Force on the recruitment process. Respondent no.5, the agency appointed to conduct the recruitment process, also filed an affidavit stating that there was no wrongdoing and that it had strictly followed the guidelines.
Observation of the Court
On the issue of maintainability, this Court had relied on Vikram Dhondiram Raskar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Writ Petition No.923 of 2021 in which it was held that the tests for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of Government cannot be conclusive or clinching as it depends on facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the State Government has the power to give directions to Respondent no.1 in the public interest, which is one of the indicative facts to observe that respondent no.1 should be considered as an instrumentality of the State. Further, respondent no.1 has also accepted that they were bound to follow the guidelines issued by the State Level Task Force. Therefore, the present writ is maintainable against Respondent no. 1.
On the second issue, this Court perused the annexed copies of answer sheets, and from that, it appeared that though multiple choice questions were there, it was not in OMR method. Moreover, essay-type questions had also been given. In view of this fact, this Court was quite clear that the statement in the affidavit in reply of Respondents nos.1 and 5 that they strictly followed and had complied with the regulations of State Level Task Force was an incorrect statement, and on that ground alone their defence was struck down. Therefore, it was held that gross irregularities in the recruitment process had been committed in the process.
To decide the consequences of irregularity, this Court relied on the Apex Court Judgement in Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors . (2017) 13 SCC 621, in which the entire examination was cancelled, and all candidates were permitted to appear in a fresh examination. In the present case, this Court also directed to set aside the recruitment process regarding Senior Bank Assistant and Junior Bank Assistant.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court set aside the entire recruitment process with regard to Senior Bank Assistant and Junior Bank Assistant due to the gross irregularities committed in the procedure.
Case Title: Sonali Shivram Dupare and Ors. v. Thane District Central Co-operative Bank and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice K.R. Shriram and Rajesh S. Patil
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.3963 OF 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. A. V. Anturkar
Advocate for the Respondents: Dr. D. S. Hatle, Mr. N. K. Rajpurohit and Mr. E. A. Sasi
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments