DNYANDEO DATTATRAYA KALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER the directions dated 2-5-1994 by the Supreme Court, these writ petitions are taken up for disposal. As per the directions, these writ petitions, along with two other writ petitions namely Nos. 2955 of 1992 and 2921 of 1993 were directed to be disposed of before 30th June, 1994. However, Writ Petition Nos. 2955 of 1992 and 2921 of 1993 are not taken up for consideration along with the above writ petitions in view of the fact that the point involved in these two writ petitions is somewhat different from the points which have been raised in the above writ petitions.

(2.) THE petitioners have sought for cancellation of selection and appointment of 481 clerks and 82 peons by respondent No. 8 - The Ahmednagar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.- in the month of August, 1991 on the ground that the interviews that were held were nothing but a farce; that the selection of the candidates for the posts of clerks and peons had already been secretly planned by the Directors of the Bank; that women folk was not invited for the interviews and thus there was practice of sex discrimination and accordingly, the said selection and appointment of the clerks and peons were contrary to the constitutional mandate. The further prayer is that the study group consisting of eminent citizens should be appointed and ways and means of recruitment should be devised and accordingly, the selection should take place by the Committee of those persons. There should be appointed a Co-operative Service Selection Board on the same lines of Sub-ordinate Selection Boards and that would ensure fair, free and unbiased selection of meritorious candidates.

(3.) IT may be stated that the main writ petition that is argued before us is Writ Petition No. 2892 of 1991 wherein the necessary affidavits and documents have been tendered. The documents and affidavits in other writ petitions, which are not taken up for consideration, but which are rather common to all these writ petitions, shall be considered while discussing the merits of these writ petitions. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 claimed to have sponsored this Writ Petition No. 2892 of 1991 as social workers whereas petitioner No. 3 has joined this petition because he was not selected although interviewed. The petitioner No. 2 is a practising lawyer at Ahmednagar. She is mainly interested in social work aimed at promoting the cause of women folk. Petitioner No. 3 passed his B. Sc. examination and claims that he was fully eligible for selection to the post of Clerk with respondent No. 8 Bank but was wrongfully bye-passed.