Satara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

13. In the meantime, another Writ Petition No.7932/2017 was filed by Respondents no.3 to 5 in this Court once again challenging the recruitment process. However, the selected and appointed candidates were not impleaded to that Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated July 27, 2017 noting that investigations were conducted into the complaints and the report was pending consideration before Commissioner for Cooperation. This Court therefore directed the Secretary, Cooperation to look into the Report which was submitted before the Commissioner for Cooperation and take an appropriate decision after giving due opportunity of hearing to all parties. All contentions of the parties were left open.

14. It appears that on June 15, 2017 the complaining Director of the Bank had submitted another complaint before the Minister, Cooperation which was forwarded by the Minister to Commissioner for Co-operation for examination of the issue. In pursuance of that complaint, the Divisional Joint Registrar had appointed District Deputy Registrar, Kolhapur as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and forwarded a report dated September 7, 2017 to the Divisional Joint Registrar, inter-alia, holding that the recruitment of the employees was completed as per the guidelines laid down by the SLTF through NIBER and that the said process was transparent, fair and proper.

15. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court on July 27, 2017 in Writ Petition No. 7932/2017, the Secretary, Cooperation issued notices to Petitioner and Respondents no.3 to 5 and conducted hearings from time to time. The Respondent no.1 thereafter passed order dated February 26, 2018, directing cancellation of the entire selection process and to conduct the same afresh. Petitioner-Bank is aggrieved by the order dated February 26, 2018 and has filed the present petition.

16. When the present petition came up before this Court on April 18, 2018, this Court stayed the impugned order dated February 26, 2018, but restrained Petitioner-Bank from confirming the appointments made in pursuance of the recruitment process. The said interim order continues to operate till date.

SUBMISSIONS

17. Mr. Godbole, the learned Senior Advocate would appear on behalf of the Petitioner-Bank. He would submit that the Additional Chief Secretary, Co-operation had no jurisdiction to decide the validity of recruitment process undertaken by Petitioner- Bank. That merely because this Court directed him to look into the matter would not clothe him with jurisdiction, which he inherently lacks. That Petitioner-Bank is a Society and is governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and that under that enactment, the Secretary, Co-operation does not exercise any jurisdiction over the Petitioner-Bank to issue any directives. That the Circular dated May 5, 2016 issued by the Commissioner for Co-operation on which reliance is place by Respondent no.1 are merely guidelines which do not have any statutory effect. Mr. Godbole, would further submit that though under Section 79A of the Act, the State Government has powers to give directions to Societies in public interest, the same would not mean that the State Government can exercise control over the affairs of a Society, that too concerning its recruitment process. That under Sections 72 and 73 of the Act, the final authority in respect of affairs of a society vests in its General Body. That under the guise of deciding complaints filed before it, Respondent no.1 has infact exercised jurisdiction of Labour/Industrial Court by undertaking industrial adjudication in respect of the validity of appointments made by the Petitioner-Bank.

18. Mr. Godbole, would then attack the impugned order on the ground of total violation of the principles of natural justice. He would submit that the selected and appointed candidates were neither impleaded in Writ Petition No. 7932/2017 nor were issued notices by Respondent no.1 before passing the impugned order. That the impugned order has the effect of nullifying appointments of 385 employees of the Bank without grant of any opportunity of hearing to them. That Respondents no.3 to 5 had participated in the selection process and did not have locus to question the same after their non-selection therein.

19. Mr. Gobdole, would also challenge the impugned order on merits submitting that the Respondent no.1 himself has arrived at a conclusion that there is no concrete material to show any definite irregularity in the selection process. He would submit that Respondent no.1 has passed the impugned order on surmises and conjectures, in absence of any definite material.

20. Lastly, Mr. Godbole would submit that 385 candidates have been validly appointed in the year 2017 and have been working with the Petitioner-Bank satisfactorily for the last more than six long years and that therefore it is now too late in a day to disturb their appointments at such a belated stage.

21. Mr. Vineet Naik, the learned Senior Advocate would appear on behalf of Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4062/2023 as well as for Intervenors in Writ Petition No. 3605/2018. He would adopt the submissions of Mr. Godbole. Additionally, he would submit that the impugned order has the consequence of cancellation of appointments of his clients. That impugned order of Respondent no.1 is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. That there was direction by this Court in its order dated July 27, 2017, to grant an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. He would submit that the appointees who would be ultimately affected by the decision taken by Respondent no.1 were the most vital parties who were required to be heard by Respondent no.1 before taking any decision. He would submit that the appointees have joined services in June, 2017 and it would be iniquitous to now disturb their appointments. That if the impugned decision of Respondent No. 1 for conduct of fresh selection process is to be now implemented, his clients would be ineligible to participate in the same having become age barred.

22. Mr. Gangal, the learned Counsel appearing for NIBER would also question the validity of the impugned order passed by Respondent no.1. He would rely upon the reports of the process was conducted by NIBER in a transparent manner. He would submit that NIBER is a specialized, professional and independent agency engaged in the activities of undertaking recruitment for various banks, Societies etc. That NIBER has conducted the selection process in a professional manner without any interference on the part of the management of the Petitioner-Bank. That as per the agreement executed with the Petitioner-Bank, NIBER was not supposed to maintain any records of selection beyond the period of three months and that therefore NIBER was justified in destroying the records of the case. That being engaged in several recruitment processes for various entities, NIBER is not expected to preserve records of selection of every entity for indefinite time.

23. Mr. Samant, the learned AGP appearing for the State Government would oppose the petitions and would support the order passed by Respondent no.1. He would submit that destruction of records by Petitioner-Bank and NIBER prevented Respondent no.1 from recording any definitive findings about lack of transparency in the selection process. He would further submit that NIBER, as well as Petitioner-Bank were aware about pendency of several complaints, as well as filing of several litigations with regard to the selection process before various Courts and authorities, and therefore they ought to have preserved the records of selection. That the records were deliberately destroyed with a view to prevent conduct of enquiry into validity of selection process.

24. Mr. Samant would further submit that Respondent no.1 has arrived at a finding that the selection was not conducted in a transparent and fair manner. He would invite our attention to the Affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent no.1. That candidates were given an option of changing incorrect answers. That the methodology of conducting examination was not made known to the candidates before conduct of the same. He would submit that all these aspects have been taken into consideration by Respondent no.1 for arriving at a conclusion that selection has not been conducted in a fair and transparent manner. He would justify the exercise of jurisdiction exercised by Respondent no.1 in passing the impugned order. He would pray for dismissal of the petitions.

25. Mr. Vishwajeet Mohite, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents no.3 to 5 would submit that though his clients are aggrieved by the manner in which the entire selection process has been conducted, now they are no longer interested in pursuing their complaints. He would submit that on account of long passage of time, his clients are no longer interested appointments with the Bank and in opposing the petitions. He would submit that Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 would accordingly submit to the jurisdiction of this Court in passing appropriate orders considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

REASONS AND ANALYSIS

26. We are called upon to determine the validity of the impugned order dated February 26, 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, (Co-operation) which has resulted in cancellation of entire process of selection leading to termination of 249 Junior Clerks and 136 Junior Peons employed by Petitioner-Bank. From the submissions of learned counsels appearing for the parties as captured above, following issue would arise for our consideration: (a) Whether Additional Chief Secretary, (Co-operation) has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order having consequences of cancellation of appointments of 385 employees of Petitioner-Bank? (b) Whether the impugned order partakes the character of industrial adjudication in determining the validity of 385 appointees?

(c) Whether candidates already appointed as Junior Clerks and Junior Peons in June 2017 were required to be heard before passing the impugned order on February 26, 2018?

(d) Whether it was permissible for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to question the selection process after unsuccessfully participating in the same? (e) Whether the findings recorded in the impugned order are sustainable on merits? (f) Whether it would now be appropriate to uphold the impugned order which will have the effect of termination of services of 385 employees who have joined services in June 2017?

27. Having formulated the broad issues that arise for our consideration, we now proceed to answer them.

JURISDICTION

28. We first examine the objection of Petitioners about lack of jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Secretary (Co-operation) to pass order dated February 26, 2018. Detailed submissions have been advanced by Mr. Godbole and Mr. Naik in support of their objection about lack of jurisdiction of Respondent no.1 to pass the impugned order. Relying on the scheme of the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, it is urged that Additional Chief Secretary, (Co-operation) is not vested with jurisdiction to decide validity of decision taken by the Board of Directors of a cooperative society. It is contended that Petitioner- Bank is not an instrumentality of State and therefore is not subject to any supervision in respect of its activities, especially relating to recruitment of its staff. That the power conferred on the State Government under Section 79-A of the Act of 1960 to give directions in public interest would not cover the power to decide validity of a particular resolution adopted by the general body of a society in appointing its staff.

29. We could have, and in fact were tempted, to consider the objection relating to jurisdiction and could have decided the same on merits. However, we find that Respondent no.1 has passed the impugned order dated February 26, 2018 on account of directives issued by this Court by order dated July 27, 2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 7932/2017. For the sake of convenience, the order dated July 27, 2017 is reproduced thus: “. Parties through their counsel. 2] Through this petition, the petitioners have challenged the process of selection consequent to the the advertisement (ExhibitA) including the shortlist and consequential appointment of the candidates. It is not in dispute that the selection process is complete and the appointment orders have been issued. 3] Learned senior advocate for respondent No.4 submits that on the basis of some complaints received in regard to aforesaid appointments, the investigation has already been done and the reportis pending for consideration and decision before the Commissioner –Respondent No.2. He submits that the petitioners have also filed identical complaint ExhibitC, which was earlier made and on the basis of which investigation was carried out. He has also pointed out that in the earlier round of litigation against the respondents, this Court in Writ Petition (St) No. 14649 of 2017 vide order dated 7th June 2017 had directed the State to consider and take appropriate decision on the representation made by the petitioners of the said petition. 4] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that enquiry in regard to allegation regarding appointment is being now conducted by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies as also by the District Deputy Registrar. He submits that in view of aforesaid, there may be conflicting reports and the interest of justice will serve, if all complaints are being decided by one authority, i.e., Secretary for Department of Cooperation. 5] Keeping in view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the Secretary to look into the report, which was submitted before the Commissioner Respondent No.2. Before taking any decision on the said report, the Secretary shall look into the grievances raised by the petitioners in the representation Exhibit B and Exhibit F. 6] Let the Secretary to look into the entire grievance and take decision in regard to the allegation independently as also by taking into consideration the report which has been received in the office of the Commissioner for Cooperation, Pune. Let the decision as aforesaid on the complaint be taken, within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all parties. 7] All contentions of all parties are kept open including contention of respondent No.4 that the petitioners having participated in the selection process are not entitled to be heard in the matter. 8] Needless to say that we have not commented upon the merits of the matter and the Secretary shall consider all the aspects of the matter including the locus standi of the petitioners. 9] Learned senior advocate for respondent No.4, on instructions from Mr. Rajendra Sarkate, Chief Executive Officer, submits that till the matter is decided as aforesaid by the Secretary, respondent No.4 – Bank shall not confirm the impugned appointments. 10] With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.” (emphasis supplied)

30. Thus, a direction was issued by this Court to the Additional Chief Secretary, (Co-operation) look into the report and take a decision. Thus it is on account of specific direction of this Court that the Respondent no.1 has exercised jurisdiction in passing order dated February 26, 2018. We therefore do not deem it necessary to go into the objection of jurisdiction raised by Mr. Godbole and Mr. Naik. However, we clarify that our order shall not be construed to mean as if we have held that Additional Chief Secretary, (Co-operation) has jurisdiction to decide validity of recruitment process of a cooperative bank. Therefore all contentions relating to jurisdiction raised by Mr. Godbole and Mr. Naik are left open to be decided in an appropriate case. We would accordingly keep the first issue relating to jurisdiction unanswered.

WHETHER INDUSTRIAL ADJUDICATION

31. The next issue is about the nature of directives issued by Respondent no.1 and its ultimate effect on the service careers of appointed employees. By his order, Respondent no.1 has directed cancellation of the entire selection process with a further direction to conduct it afresh. At the time when Respondent no.1 passed order on February 26, 2018, 385 candidates had already joined the posts of Junior Clerk and Junior Post between June 16, 2017 to June 20, 2017. They were already appointed on the posts and rights were created in their favour. The direct consequence of the directives issued by Respondent no.1 on February 26, 2018, would be termination of services of those 385 candidates. This is not a case where the selection process was still underway and the Respondent no.1 interdicted the same during its pendency. By the time, he determined the validity of selection process, 385 appointees were already appointed in June 2017 and were already functioning on their respective posts.

32. It must be borne in mind that in addition to a Director of the Bank and a MLA, the complaining parties before the Additional Chief Secretary, (Co-operation) were also Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, who had unsuccessfully participated in the selection process. Therefore, qua Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the Additional Chief Secretary, (Co-operation) has adjudicated essentially a service dispute relating to validity of their appointments. In ordinary course, if Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 desired to challenge the selection process or to question the validity of appointments already made or to seek their own appointments would have to approach a Labour or Industrial Court. They could not have sought the relief of termination of services of appointees or their own appointments before the Additional Chief Secretary, (Co-operation). Once the appointments are made, the appointment orders are required to be challenged before the appropriate forum and the appointment orders are required to be set aside. In the present case, such a course of action was not adopted by Respondents no.3 to 5, on whose complaint the impugned order dated February 26, 2018 is passed by Respondent no.1.

33. We therefore hold that since appointments of 385 employees were already made, the exercise undertaken by the Additional Chief Secretary, (Co-operation) assumed characteristic of an industrial adjudication.

AUDI ALTERUM PARTEM

34. Coming to the third issue of allegation denial of grant of opportunity of hearing to the affected employees, we find that this Court had made it clear by its order dated July 27, 2017 that Respondent no.1 shall take a decision only after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The expression ‘all parties’ would not be restricted only to the parties to Writ Petition NO. 7932/2017 and the same is required to be interpreted to mean that all parties who were likely to be affected by the decision of Respondent no.1. In the present case, parties who were most vitally affected on account of decision of Respondent no.1 are the 385 appointees. Admittedly no notices were issued to any of the appointees nor they were heard by Respondent no.1 before taking decision dated February 26, 2018. Apart from specific direction of this Court to hear all parties concerned, principles of natural justice demand that the appointees were heard before cancelling their appointments.

35. We therefore hold that the decision dated February 26, 2018, which has the effect of nullifying the appointments of 385 Junior Clerks and Junior Peons, is violative of the principles of nature justice and the same is therefore unsustainable.

CHALLENGE TO SELECTION PROCESS AFTER PARTICIPATION

36. It is also required to be borne in mind that Respondents no.3 to 5 participated in the selection process and challenged the same only after finding that they were not selected. It would be necessary to consider the objections raised by Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to the selection process. Some of the objections can be summarized as under:

(i) Appointment of NIBER to conduct selection process was not done in pursuance of decision of General Body of the bank but by decision of Executive Committee.

(ii) Decision to appoint NIBER was hastily taken.

(iii) Multiple choice questions were deliberately included in question paper to favour candidates.

(iv) NIBER deliberately sent question papers to the management under the guise of scanning so that the management could favour its candidates.

(v) In addition to conduct of written test, NIBER was also given authority to conduct interviews.

37. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 apparently participated in the selection process for appointment on the post of Junior Peon. Written Test was held by NIBER on 30 April 2017 in which they appeared without any demur. The result of the written test was declared on 31st May 2017 and they were not shortlisted for interviews. They apparently could not pass the written test. Thereafter, they instituted Writ Petition Stp. No. 14649/2017. True it is that they had submitted a representation dated 3rd May 2017. However, having participated in the written test, they could not have questioned the manner in which NIBER was appointed to hold the same. Also they waited for declaration of results and thereafter filed Writ Petition Stp. No. 14649/2017 in this Court.

38. It is well settled law in catena judgments of the Apex Court that after participation in the selection process, it is impermissible to challenge the same. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments in Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J. & K. & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486, Anupal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 173.

39. If Respondents no.3 to 5 were to institute independent proceedings challenging appointments of any candidates, their challenge would have been repelled on the ground of participation in the selection process without any demur. All these aspects are not taken into consideration by Respondent no.1 while directing cancellation of the selection process, which has the consequence of annulling appointments of 385 appointees.

MERITS OF IMPUGNED ORDER

40. Coming to the merits of the order dated February 26, 2018 we find that Respondent no.1 has not come to any definitive conclusion that there is any specific irregularity or illegality in the selection process. Respondent no.1 has arrived a conclusion that there is a ‘possibility’ of injustice on other eligible candidates. He has further held it is ‘uncertain’ as to whether the selection process is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. We reproduce the relevant conclusions recorded by Respondent no.1: “Lknj Hkjrh izzfØ;slanHkkZr lkrkjk ftYgk e/;orhZ lgdkjh cWad gh izeq[k izkf/kdj.k vlY;kus R;kauh vfHkdrkZ Eg.kwu useysY;k uk;cj;k laLFksekQZar gh izfØ;k ikjn’kZd o izkekf.kd i/nrhus ikj ikM.;kph tckcnkjh CkWadsphp vkgs- R;keqGs Hkjrh izzfØ;sckcr fofo/k rØjhal vuql#u vkns’khr fofo/k pkSd’khaP;k ik’oZHkwehoj rØjharhy vk{ksikaph ‘kgkfu’kk djrk;koh Eg.kwu cWadsus loZ laca/khr vfHkys[k tru d#u Bso.ks vko’;d gksrs ijarw v’kh d`rh cWadsdMwu u >kY;kus Hkjrh izzzfØ;slaca/kh fofo/k dkxni=s o iqjkos CkWad o uk;cj laLFksnjE;ku >kysY;k djkjkP;k dkj.kk[kkyh u”V dj.;kr vkY;kps vk<Gwu vkys- ifj.kkeh;k pkSd’khe/;s;kfpdkdrZs rlsp vkenkj Jh- xksjs vkf.k Jh- vfuy nslkbZ;kauh Hkjrh izzzfØ;se/;s gLr{ksi >kY;kcÌy mifLFkr dsysY;k rØjhaph ‘kgkfu’kk djrk vkyh ukgh o laca/ khr rØjharhy fofo/k vk{ksikaps fujkdj.k gksÅ ‘kdys ukgh- R;keqGs lnjhy ifjPNsn 5-3 ¼4]5]6]8]9]10]11½;ke/;s uksanfoysY;k fu”d”kkZe/;s lfoLrj o Li”Vi.ks uewn dsY;kizek.ks lnj Hkjrh izfØ;k izkekf.kd] ikjn’kZd o la’k;krhr i/nrhus >kyh ulY;kckcr lafnX/krk fuekZ.k >kyh vkgs- rlsp;keqGs;k Hkjrh izzzfØ;sr lgHkkxh >kysY;k ik= mesnokjkaoj vU;k; gksÅu caWd o R;kP;k lgHkkxhnkjkaP;k O;kid fgrkl ck/kk iksg.;kph ‘kD;rk ukdkjrk;sr ukgh-;k ik’oZHkwehoj lnjhy ifjPNsn 5- 3 ¼4]5]6]8]9]10]11½;ke/;s uksanfoysY;k fu”d”kkZP;k vuq”kaxkus lsod Hkjrh izzzfØ;se/khy lpksVh] ikjn’kZdrk o ikfo«; jk[k.;kP;k O;kid gsrqus lnjph lsod Hkjrh jÌ dj.ks;ksX; vkgs;k erkl eh vkyks vkgs-" The above findings can be translated as under:- “Since Satara District Central Cooperative Bank is the main authority in respect of the said recruitment process, the responsibility of ensuring that selection process is conducted in a transparent and honest manner through the agency of NIBER was on the Bank. It was therefore necessary for the Bank to preserve the concerned records for the purpose of verification of objections raised in the complaints, on the basis of which the enquiry is initiated relating to selection process. However, since the Bank failed to do so, the record and evidence relating to the selection process were destroyed on the pretext of agreement between the Bank and NIBER. Consequently, the complaints made by the Petitioner-Bank and MLA, Mr. Jaykumar Gore and Mr. Anil Desai with regard to the interference in the selection process could not be verified in the present enquiry and various objections in the complaint could not be decided. Therefore, there is uncertainty as to whether the said selection process was conducted in an honest, transparent and undoubtful manner, as observed in the concussions recorded in paras-5.[3] (4, 5,6, 8, 9, 10 and 11). “ Therefore the possibility of adverse effect on the interest of eligible candidates participating in the selection process as well as of Bank and its shareholders cannot be denied. I am therefore of the opinion that it is appropriate to cancel the selection process with the broad objective of maintaining transparency and purity in the selection process in view of the findings recorded in paras-5.[3] (4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11).

41. Use of the words ‘possibility’ ‘situation of uncertainty’, etc by the Additional Chief Secretary, (Co-operation) make it abundantly clear that he was not able to arrive at a definitive conclusion in the matter. On the basis of the above vague findings, which are based solely on surmises and conjectures, Respondent no.1 has taken a decision to cancel the selection process. We have gone through the findings recorded in para-5.[3] of the order and we do not find that any specific illegality or irregularity is found by Respondent no.1 in the selection process. To illustrate, in paragraph-5.3(4) of the Order, Respondent no.1 has held the bank liable for its inability to prove that there was no interference in the selection process. Thus rather than putting burden on the complainants to prove any interference in the selection process, the Respondent no.1 has drawn a surmise of interference on account of inability of the Bank to prove to the contrary. Even in para-5.38 of the Order, the Respondent no.1 has recorded several surmises such as ‘question has remained unanswered’, ‘I cannot record undisputed and certain conclusion’, ‘there is element of uncertainty’. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the complainants could not make out any specific illegality or irregularity in the selection process and Respondent no.1 has passed order merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

42. What essentially weighed with Respondent No. 1 for setting aside the selection process is the factum of destruction of records by Petitioner-Bank and NIBER. While we do agree with submission of Mr. Samant that Petitioner-Bank and NIBER ought to have preserved the records relating to selection as the same was repeatedly called in question in numerous proceedings, at the same time no surmise of illegality in selection can be drawn ipso facto on account of destruction of records.

NIBER has relied upon agreement providing for destruction of records after three months. We do not wish to delve further in this issue. Suffice it to observe that the selection process has been conducted by a professional agency, empaneled by the State Government. There are no allegations of malafides against NIBER who conducted the selection process. Therefore, in absence of any definitive finding about demonstrable irregularity or illegality in selection process, it was erroneous on the part of Respondent No. 1 to set aside the same.

43. It is also required to be borne in mind that enquires in respect of the selection process were twice conducted by Assistant 30th May 2017 and 7th September 2017 holding that the selection process was conducted in a transparent manner through NIBER.

44. Therefore even on merits, the impugned order is unsustainable.

DISTURBING APPOINTMENTS AFTER 6 YEARS

45. We have already observed that the impugned order, if implemented, would have the effect of termination of appointments of 385 employees. The Order further directs that the selection process be conducted afresh. Those 385 appointees have been functioning with the Petitioner-Bank since June, 2017 i.e. for the last six long years. It would now be too late in a day to disturb their appointments, especially in absence of any specific finding about their ineligibility to participate in the selection process. Respondents no.3 to 5 are also no longer interested in pursuing their complaints in respect of the selection process. Since the appointees are functioning with the Petitioner-Bank for the last six long years. If those 385 posts are to be readvertised now as per the directions in the impugned order, both the appointees as well as the complainants would be age barred to participate in the same. The employer is satisfied that the selection process has been validly conducted. Therefore merely on a doubts raised by a third party about transparency in the selection process it would not be appropriate to now direct that the appointees must vacate the posts for initiation of a fresh recruitment process. The ends of justice therefore would meet if a quietus is given to the issue. Mr. Godbole has urged before us that additionally several vacancies still exist in the Bank, which it is unable to fill up because of pendency of the present Petition. The Bank may initiate the process for filling up the vacant posts by following a transparent selection process.

46. We are therefore of the view that it would be iniquitous to disturb the appointments of 385 employees at such a belated stage. It is yet another factor why we are not inclined to uphold the order of Respondent no.1 which has the effect of annulling the appointments of 385 appointees at such a distinct point of time.

47. After answering all the issues which we have formulated, we are of the view that the order dated February 26, 2018 passed by Respondent no.1 is unsustainable. It deserves to be set aside.

48. Writ Petitions accordingly succeed. Order dated February 26, 2018 passed by Respondent no.1 is set aside. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no orders as to costs.

49. Writ Petitions alongwith Interim Application No.3381 of 2020 stand disposed of accordingly. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.)