'Gross Irregularities': Bombay High Court Quashes Recruitment Process of Thane Co-operative Bank, Aspirants May Re-Apply

“…it is quiet clear that the statement in the affidavit in reply of respondent nos.1 (bank) and 5 (recruitment agency) that they strictly followed and have complied with the regulations of State Level Task Force is incorrect statement…Therefore, the only conclusion that we can arrive at is, there has been gross irregularities in the recruitment process.”

A division bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Rajesh S. Patil was dealing with a writ petition filed by three candidates challenging the recruitment process of 2017.

Petitioner Sonali Dupare applied for the post of Senior Banking Assistant and the other two petitioners applied for post of Junior Banking Assistant. They were not selected for the post. They approached the High Court alleging irregularities in the recruitment process.

The petitioners’ case was that the bank did not follow the guidelines given by the State Level Task Force on recruitment process (SLTF). According to the petitioners, some of the irregularities in the written exam included requirement to mention the candidate’s name in the answer sheet despite this being impermissible. Further, question papers were not sealed, and OMR reading was not followed. The respondent-bank objected to the maintainability of the petition claiming that it is not a state under Article 12 of the Constitution.

The court rejected the objection to maintainability as the petition also sought directions against District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies which is a state. Further, the state government has power to give directions to the bank in public interest under section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1970.

The court said that the bank can be considered an instrumentality of the state as it admitted that it is guided by and has followed the guidelines issued by SLTF. “If the stand of respondent no.1 (bank) is that they are not answerable under Section 226 of the Constitution of India has to be accepted, there was no need for respondent no.1 to even follow the guide lines of the State Level Task Force”, the court reasoned.

“Even if we do not express any opinion as to whether respondent no.1 was State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it is beyond any cavil of doubt that writ petition will be maintainable when the action of respondent no.1, which is a co-operative bank registered under the said Act, to which Section 79A would apply, is violative of statutory provisions”, the court further held.

Jyoti Lathkar, Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Konkan Division in an affidavit specifically stated that irregularities were found in the recruitment process after inquiry. According to Lathkar’s affidavit, guideline 7.8 was only partly followed. It says that the agency conducting recruitment may arrange to scan answer sheets or OMR sheets immediately after the exam into a soft copy sealed in presence of two-third candidates.

The court rejected the bank’s contention that the guideline 7.8 of the SLTF says “may” be scanned and not “shall” as the bank in its affidavit categorically stated that it strictly followed guideline 7.8 of the SLTF.

Under section 79A of the Act, state government can pass directions to Bank in public interest. Therefore, to some extent the bank is a public authority, the court said. The court reiterated that the word ‘may’ can mean ‘must’ or ‘shall’ in context. When discretion is conferred on a public authority coupled with an obligation, the word ‘may’ should be construed as a command, the court stated relying on Mohan Singh and Ors. v. International Airport Authority.

The court accepted the petitioner’s submission that essay type questions could be used to increase or reduce marks given to the candidates. The court noted that no affidavit has been filed by any respondent denying the petitioners’ or Lathkar’s affidavits. Therefore, it court concluded that there were gross irregularities in the recruitment.

The court relied on the case of Gohil Vishwaraj Hanu Bhai v. State of Gujarat in which Apex Court had cancelled the entire examination process after finding proof of large-scale tampering of the examination process.

The court rejected the bank’s argument that in that case the recruitment process was conducted by a state and not a cooperative Bank. “If a Co-operative bank, to which State Government can give directions in public interest as provided under Section 79A of the said Act, has not followed those directions in letter and spirit, certainly the judgment in Gohil Vishwaraj Hanubhai (supra) will cover respondent no.1 (bank) as well”, the court held.

The court clarified that all those who applied for the recruitment process shall be permitted to reapply and any age restriction to such candidates shall be relaxed. The court further said that other candidates may apply but they will be subject to age restriction as per recruitment rules.

Senior Advocate A. V. Anturkar appeared or the petitioners while advocate D. S. Hatle appeared for the respondent-bank.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 3963 of 2018

Case Title – Sonali Shivram Dupare and Ors. v. Thane District Central Co-operative Bank and Ors.

Citation - 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 22