(1.) The two Writ Petitioners have approached this court by filing the instant Writ Petition, inter alia calling into question the selection and appointment of the private Respondent Nos 7 to 36 and also assailing the continuance of the Respondent No 5 as the Secretary of the Respondent No 6 bank participated in the recruitment process initiated by the Respondent No. 6 Naval Dockyard Co-operative Ban Ltd, Mumbai, with the following prayers:
(2.) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Respondent No. 6 had published an advertisement notice in the Marathi Local Newspaper "Aapla Mahanagar" dated 30 th January 2020, inviting applications for filling up 19 posts of Clerks and 6 posts of Peons. In response to the said advertisement, the Petitioners, along with other eligible candidates, had submitted their candidature. The recruitment process consisted of written test and oral interview. After the selection process was concluded, the private Respondents Nos. 7 to 36 were selected and were consequently appointed against the respective posts. According to the Petitioners, the Respondents have failed to adhere to the Government Guidelines applicable to the bank while conducting the recruitment process and that the reservation policy of the State has not been followed while making the recruitment.
(3.) The Respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who are the contesting Respondents in this case have filed Reply, inter alia, questioning the maintainability of the Writ Petition. In their reply, Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have controverted the averments made in the Writ Petition on merits while maintain the stand that the Writ Petitioners, being the unsuccessful candidates who have having failed to secure the cut off marks in the selection process, do not have any right to challenge the appointment of the private Respondents. The statements made in paragraph 18 (xiv) of the Reply would relevant for this case and, therefore, the same are being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-