Satish Valku Mohape vs State Of Maharashtra

CNR No : HCBM010140792026

J-4013-10724.odt
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4013 OF 2026
Satish Valku Mohape ....Petitioner
V/S
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10724 OF 2026
Harshal Ravindra Pashte & Anr. ....Petitioners
V/S
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr.Amogh Singh a/w Mr.Pratik Thorat for the Petitioner in WP
No.4013/2026.
Mr.Gaurav Srivastav a/w Mr.Nishant Pawar and Mr.Prem Gada
for the Petitioners in WP No.10724/2026.
Mr.Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shailesh Redekar,
Mr.Yogesh Rawool, Mr.Nitin Bhoir, Mr.Manas Mukane and
Ms.Mrunmayee Phadke i/b Vidisha Legal for Respondent No.2 in
WP No.4013/2026.
Mr.A.I. Patel, Addl. GP a/w Mr.S.H. Kankal, AGP for State in both
Petitions.
Mr.Huzan Bhumgara a/w Mr.Sujith Suresh i/b Desai & Diwanji for
Respondent No.5.
Mr.D.S. Hatle a/w Mr. Umesh Chavan for Respondent No.2 in WP
NO.10724/2026.
Mr.Aditya Joshi for Respondent NO.6 in both Petitions.
Mr.Pavan S. Patil a/w Mr.Sameer Patil and Mr.Tanmay
Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.7 to 20 in WP No.4013/2026.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ
th
DATE : 14 OCTOBER 2026
Digitally signed
by RAJSHREE
KISHOR MORE
Date: 2026.10.27
15:10:58 +0530
RAJSHREE
KISHOR
MORE
1/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J) :
1 The two Writ Petitions before us challenge the recruitment
process, conducted by Thane District Central Co-operative Bank
Limited/Respondent No.2 (for short ‘Thane DCC Bank’) through
Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)/Respondent No.4,
the process being conducted for the year 2025-26 for various
posts in the bank and being carried out through an agency
Workwell Infotech Private Limited/Respondent No.6 (for short
‘Workwell’).
Both the Writ Petitions seek quashing and setting aside of
the entire recruitment process, and pray for a declaration that
the appointment and engagement of Respondent No.6 Agency ,
despite its blacklisting, is illegal, arbitrary, and void. A
declaration is sought to conduct a fresh recruitment process,
strictly in accordance with the Government Resolutions issued in
exercise of power under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960 through a duly eligible and reputed
agency such as IBPS/ TCS/MKCL. It is also prayed that an
independent and impartial investigation shall be conducted into
the affairs of Thane DCC Bank through an appropriate agency
such as Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) or any other
competent authority, as it permitted the recruitment process to
be conducted through Respondent No.6 , despite its ineligibility.
2 In Writ Petition No.4013/2026, the Petitioner is one Satish
Valku Mohape, who has described himself to be the member and
shareholder of Thane DCC Bank, and he plead that he is directly
2/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
affected by the illegal and arbitrary recruitment process carried
out by the Bank, which has impacted its transparency and
integrity. In the said Writ Petition, he has also sought a relief of
declaring the Directors of Thane DCC Bank to be disqualified in
terms of Section 10A(2A) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949,
and in light of the disqualification, he seek a time-bound inquiry
into their role, actions and decisions, as they have actively
participated in the impugned recruitment process, and therefore
a request is made that an action should be taken against them,
including fixing of responsibility and directing such persons to
compensate and make good the loss caused to the bank and public
exchequer.
We have heard the learned counsel Amogh Singh for this
petitioner.
3 The second Writ Petition No. 10724/2026 is filed by two
Petitioners: Harshal Ravindra Pashte and Sayali Santosh Ghige,
who participated in the process of recruitment, as they responded
to the advertisement issued on 18/08/2025 by the bank, and they
claim to be directly and adversely affected by the process in
which they were not selected. It is alleged by the Petitioners that
the entire recruitment process conducted by Thane DCC Bank
through Respondent No.6 stands vitiated on account of non-
compliance of the mandatory conditions prescribed in the
Government Resolutions dated 15/06/2018 and 23/06/2022, by
non-publication of the answer key and the declaration of the
results on the website.
The said Petitioners are represented by the learned counsel
3/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
Mr. Srivastav, who has pressed for the reliefs in the Petition in
the backdrop of the pleadings.
The Thane DCC Bank is represented by the learned Senior
Counsel Mr.Sakhare whereas, the learned Addl. GP Mr.A.I. Patel
has appeared on behalf of Commissioner of Co-operation and the
other officers of the Cooperation Department. The learned counsel
Mr.Aditya Joshi has marked appearance for Workwell
/Respondent No.6.
4 On the pleadings being completed, with the consent of the
respective counsel, we have taken up the Writ Petitions for final
hearing. Hence, we issue ‘Rule’, which is made returnable
forthwith.
At the outset, the learned counsel Mr.Sakhare has raised a
serious objection about the maintainability of the Petition filed by
Mr. Satish Mohape, as he would submit that, he is not a member/
shareholder of Thane DCC Bank, and, therefore, he has no locus
to raise a challenge to the recruitment process. As against this
contention, the learned counsel Mr. Singh would submit that the
Petitioner is a Chairman of Sheti Mitra Dudh Utpadak Sahakari
Society at Manivali Khurd, District Thane, which is a shareholder
of Thane DCC Bank and he would place on record a document to
that effect.
We are prima facie of the view that the Petitioner is not a
member or shareholder of the Thane DCC Bank, and definitely he
has no direct interest in its functioning, as he is a chairman of one
Society, which is one of the shareholder of Thane DCC Bank, and
since he has not filed the proceedings in public interest nor he is
4/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
a participant in the process, in our view, he lack the locus to
maintain the Petition.
However, since we are hearing the Writ Petition filed by the
two individuals who participated in the recruitment process and
are impacted by its outcome, and since in any case we have
permitted the pleadings to be completed in both the Petitions,
including the Petition filed by Mr. Mohape, we have heard Mr.
Singh in support of the cause, but this by no way shall be
construed that we had condoned the objection as regards Mr.
Mohape lacking the locus to file the present Writ Petition calling
in question the recruitment process implemented by Thane DCC
Bank through Workwell/Respondent 6.
Since we do not find a locus in the Petition, the relief which
is sought by him, by way of prayer clause (f), in regards to the
disqualification incurred by the Directors of the Thane DCC Bank
under Section 10A(2A) of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, is
rejected by us.
5 The Learned Counsel Mr. Srivastava representing the
Petitioners Harshal Pashte and Sayali Ghige, would invite our
attention to the Government Order issued under Section 79A(1)
of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, prescribing
the procedure for implementing the online recruitment process
for filling of the posts in District Central Cooperative Banks, since
the government had received serious complaints in the conduct of
offline recruitment, and the preliminary inquiries had revealed
lack of fairness, impartiality, and transparency. It is, therefore,
submitted by the learned counsel that the procedure prescribed
5/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
for appointment of a competent third-party agency and in detail
set out the procedure to be followed, which included publication of
the answer key, invitation of objections, and its consideration,
short-listing the candidates to be held eligible for interview as
well as publication of the final merit and select list depicting the
marks and order of merit alongwith furnishing password
protected copies of the result to the Bank and the District Deputy
Registrar etc.
It is in continuation of these directives, the State
Government issued a Resolution on 23/06/2022 formulating the
framework for conducting the recruitment process in a
transparent manner by adopting online procedure. Directions
were issued to the DCC Banks to engage the services of
authorized societies/agencies from the panel maintained by the
Commissioner and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which
included Indian Bank Association (IBA), Institute of Banking
Personal Selection (IBPS) etc. The criteria for selecting such
agency/ society was also specifically set out by directing that it
shall be scrupulously adhered to.
6 It is not in dispute that the panel prepared by the
Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative
Societies included Workwell.
The Bank submitted its proposal to the Commissioner of Co-
operation seeking permission to fill up 165 posts by direct
recruitment which comprised of 123 Junior Banking Assistants,
36 Peons, 5 Security Guards and 1 post of Driver. The said posts
became available in the wake of the revised staffing pattern
6/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
approved by the Commissioner. On 02/06/2025, approval was
granted to Thane DCC Bank for filling up 165 posts.
Thane DCC Bank, therefore, engaged the services of
Workwell and an Agreement was executed between them for
conducting the online recruitment process. Pursuant to this
arrangement, the Bank published an advertisement on
18/08/2025 on its website covering 165 posts, by giving details of
the posts to be filled in and also charting out the schedule for
conduct of the process which included an online examination to
be followed by the interview, the dates of which were to be
indicated on the website. The advertisement also prescribed the
qualifications required as well as terms and conditions of the
appointment.
The applications were accepted online and as per the Thane
DCC Bank, 3235 applications were received for the post of Junior
Banking Assistant, 2655 applications were received for the post
of Peon, 169 for the post of Security Guards and 143 for the post
of Driver.
7 It is in this process, the two Petitioners in Writ Petition
No.10724/2026 participated as they filled in the application form
for the post of Junior Banking Assistant. According to
Mr.Srivastav, after the advertisement was issued, Thane DCC
Bank submitted a proposal for filling up 17 additional posts
which covered 10 posts of Junior Banking Assistant, 5 of Peons
and two of drivers. It is his grievance that though the approval
was granted for filling up of those posts after issuance of
advertisement, the process combined these 17 posts taking the
7/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
selection process to 182 posts.
Pursuant to the process, the examination was conducted at
different centres between 06/10/2025 to 08/10/2025. On
09/10/2025 the answer key for all the posts was published on
the bank’s web site, is what is stated in the reply of the Bank, but
according to Mr.Srivastav, there is no proof of this averment.
Four candidates who submitted objection to the answer key,
received response after two days when the final answer key was
published on 14/10/2025. Thereafter, on 27/10/2025 the
candidates were short-listed for interviews and interview calls
were forwarded to the eligible candidates by E-mail and SMS.
Obviously, as far as the two Petitioners are concerned since they
did not find place in the selection list, they were not called for
interview, but it is the contention of Mr.Srivastav that the two
Petitioners were not made aware of the progress of the selection
process and it at a very later stage i.e. on 10/02/2026, they were
informed that they have been disqualified.
8 Inviting our attention to the sequence of events, it is
submitted by Mr.Srivastav that on 31/10/2025, the State
cancelled the empanelment of 7 agencies including Workwell and
directed that the future DCC Bank recruitment shall only be
conducted through IBPS, TCS or MKCL.
Being aggrieved by the said communication, Maharashtra
Institute of Hardware and Software Tech Pvt. Ltd. who was one of
the entities, whose empanelment was cancelled on 31/10/2025,
approached the Nagpur Bench of this Court, alleging that the
Additional Commissioner and the State Government had
8/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
cancelled the agency while the recruitment process was on its
way and the main contention advanced was that the cancellation
was without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Bank and
the Petitioner- Agency. It was also pleaded that it would have an
adverse impact on the recruitment process.
The Division Bench found merit and substance in the said
contention and observed that the Petition shall succeed only on
the ground that before cancelling the empanelment of the
recruitment agency, they ought to have given an opportunity of
hearing. Therefore, the impugned Government Resolution dated
31/10/2025 was quashed and set aside, directing the
Respondent/State to grant hearing to the Petitioner and other
stake holders and take a decision afresh.
As far as the recruitment process of Yavatmal District Co-
operative Bank was concerned, which was stalled, was directed
not to be continued till the State Government took a decision on
the empanelment of the Petitioner.

9 It is submitted by Mr.Srivastav that in pursuance of the
directives issued, a report was prepared under the signature of
the Commissioner, Co-operation and it was forwarded to the
Principal Secretary, Co-operation and Marketing Department on
23/01/2026 which was followed by an order passed by the State
Government on 05/02/2026, by which the direction is issued to
remove the name of Workwell and Maharashtra Institute of
Hardware and Software Technology Ltd. who had conducted the
recruitment process for Ratnagiri and Satara District Co-
operative Bank and Sangli District Cooperative Bank respectively
9/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
as they did not comply with the directions contained in the
Government Resolution dated 14/06/2018 prescribing the
procedure for carrying out the recruitment process. Thus, by the
said order, the name of the Petitioner was removed from the
panel of agencies.
It is contended by Mr.Srivastav that despite this order being
passed on 05/02/2026, on 06/02/2026 Workwell submitted the
final result alongwith the waiting list to the Thane DCC Bank and
on 09/02/2026 the Board of Thane DCC Bank accepted the result
and approved it by passing a resolution. The bank finally
published the result of the recruitment process on its website on
10/02/2026 and the candidates were informed of their selection
individually by e-mail and SMS.
Thereafter, on the same day appointment letters were
issued to 182 candidates and between 11/02/2026 to
25/02/2026 the candidates have joined their respective posts.
10 In these facts, it is the contention of Mr.Srivastav, that the
Bank has failed to follow the directives issued by the State
Government under Section 79A(1) as it had faulted at every
stage by not publishing the results and in particular, when it
added 17 posts to the 165 posts for which advertisement was
published, as no fresh advertisement was issued and a select list
was prepared to fill up all 182 posts and even appointment orders
were issued.
It is also his contention that despite the fact that ‘Workwell’
was removed from the panel maintained by the Commissioner, Co-
operation on 05/02/2026, it continued to remain in the
10/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
recruitment process and submitted its final result and waiting
list to the Bank on 06/02/2026 based upon which the
appointment orders were issued.
It is specifically contended by the learned counsel that
there are grave irregularities in conduct of the process of
recruitment as no procedure was followed and he would submit
that the Petitioners filed complaints, upon they gaining knowledge
that they were not selected and the first representation/
complaint was made within 12 days of declaration of the final
result, it being addressed to the Principal Secretary and other
functionaries making grievance about the recruitment process
implemented by the Thane DCC Bank. However, since no steps
were taken, he had to rush to this Court.
11 Repeatedly, Mr.Srivastav would canvass before us that the
whole procedure has been conducted fraudulently and, therefore,
we insisted that he shall take us through the grounds raised in
the Petition and he would invite our attention to the grounds
raised in support of the reliefs sought in the Petition. From
reading of grounds A to K, we could crystalize them as below :
“a. The Petitioner submits that the impugned recruitment process is
ex facie arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The Respondent No.2 has conducted the
recruitment process in a manner which is neither fair nor transparent
and is contrary to the settled principles governing public employment.
The entire process is vitiated by arbitrariness and lack of level playing
field, thereby rendering the same liable to be quashed and set aside.
b. The Petitioner submits that Respondent No.6 was admittedly
blacklisted on 08.02.2026. Despite such blacklisting, Respondent No.2
proceeded to approve the recruitment process conducted by
Respondent No.6 and declared the results thereafter. It is a settled
principle of law that any action taken through a blacklisted agency is
illegal and void. The continuation and culmination of the recruitment
process through a blacklisted entity renders the entire process non est
and liable to be set aside.
11/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
c. The Petitioner submits that the Government Resolutions dated
15.06.2018 and 23.06.2022 mandate that recruitment must be
conducted through a competent and reputed agency having no history
of blacklisting or malpractice. The Respondent No.2 has acted in clear
breach of these mandatory guidelines by appointing and continuing
with Respondent No.6. The impugned recruitment process is therefore
contrary to binding executive instructions and liable to be quashed.
d. The Petitioner submits that this Hon’ble Court, by judgment dated
04.01.2023 in Writ Petition No.3963 of 2018, had already set aside an
earlier recruitment process of Respondent No.2 and directed that
future recruitment be conducted through reputed agencies such as
IBPS or as recommended by the Reserve Bank of India. The
Respondent No.2 has acted in willful disregard of the said binding
judgment, thereby rendering the impugned process illegal and
unsustainable.
e. The Petitioner submits that despite the Government Resolution
dated 31.10.2025 cancelling the panel of recruitment agencies and the
subsequent judicial intervention by this Hon’ble Court, the Respondent
No.2 proceeded with the recruitment process in undue haste and in
complete disregard of the evolving legal position. Such conduct
amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and vitiates the entire process.”
As far as the fraud being argued, the learned counsel would
rely upon the following ground :-
“g. The Petitioner submits that the recruitment process has
been initiated, conducted and finalised under the authority of directors
who stood disqualified under Section 1OA(2A) of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949, having completed their maximum permissible
tenure. Such directors had ceased to hold office by operation of law and,
therefore, lacked the authority to take any decision. Consequently, all
actions taken under their supervision are without jurisdiction, non est
in law and liable to be declared void ab initio.”
It is the specific ground raised in the Petition that unless
and until the Court intervene, the fraud is purported on genuine,
meritorious candidates including the Petitioners and the
Respondent having acted through twice blacklisted agency has
put approximately 4000 honest examinees/participants of the
district to an ir-remediable injustice without any redress.
12/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
12 The learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision
1
in case of Rakhi Ray & Others v. High Court of Delhi & Ors. in
support of the submission that 17 posts being added to the
advertisement and selection being made for those posts, without
they being part of the advertisement amounts to a grave illegality.
He would also invoke the decision of the Apex Court in Central
2
Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo & Ors. to
submit that it is duty of the constitutional court to ensure that
public office is not held by a usurper without any legal authority
and the issue of institutional integrity needs to be considered to
justify holding of a public office and according to him in exercise
of the writ jurisdiction, this Court is entitled to examine the
manner in which the appointments were made and whether the
procedure adopted was just, fair and reasonable.
Reliance is also placed on the latest decision of the Apex
Court in case of State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya
3
(Chatterjee) & Ors. pertaining to the recruitment process and
scope of judicial review where the Apex Court has highlighted
that if the entire selection process was vitiated and tainted
beyond resolution, then definitely it warrant immediate
cancellation.
According to him, the manipulation and fraud on large scale
coupled with an attempt to cover up the same, had tainted the
selection process beyond repair and eroded credibility and
legitimacy of the selection process, and hence cancellation of the
entire selection process is the only way out.
1 (2010) 2 SCC 637
2 (2014) 1 SCC 161
3 (2025) 11 SCC 126
13/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
13 The learned senior counsel Mr.Sakhare, representing
Thane DCC Bank would contest submissions, as he would submit
that the guidelines by the State Government through the
Government Resolution are issued with an objective of ensuring
transparency in the whole process and this was sought to be
achieved by conducting the recruitment process online. It is
submitted that it was open for the bank to select an agency
which was empanelled with the Commissioner of Co-operation and
while selecting Respondent No.6, the Bank did not commit any
wrong as it was one of the empanelled agency.
An advertisement was issued for 165 posts, but according
to Mr.Sakhare, after the advertisement was published on
18/08/2025 on its website, approval was granted for forwarding
a proposal to the Co-operation Department for filling of 17
additional posts and since the Commissioner approved these
posts, a communication was addressed to Workwell on
06/10/2025 to carry out the process for even filling up these 17
vacancies.
Mr. Sakhare would invite our attention to the
advertisement issued by the Bank on its website which included
clause 7, where it was stated that there is every likelihood of the
posts undergoing a change either by its increase or decrease. It
was also further clarified that in case if the posts are increased,
the same shall be filled in with the candidates in the waiting list
and the Bank reserved rights in this regard. Similarly, the bank
also reserved its right to cancel the recruitment process without
any reason or to stall it. Therefore, according to Mr.Sakhare
14/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
with this clarity being offered in the advertisement itself, the two
unsuccessful candidates can make no grievance.
14 We find merit in the said contention. We fail to understand
how the participants in the recruitment process including the two
Petitioners before us are prejudicially affected by adding of 17
posts and in fact by addition of the posts if they would have been
on the waiting list , and in fact since the advertisement made it
clear that for filling up the additional posts, the waiting list shall
be exhausted, if the Petitioners were to find themselves on the
waiting list, that would have been a benefit.
In any case, the advertisement explicitly made it clear that
there is likelihood of change in the number of posts and also
suggested as to what process the Bank would adopt, therefore, we
do not find any illegality in including 17 posts in the
advertisement which was already published covering 165 posts.

15 The next grievance of the Petitioners is that the objections
raised by the candidates received response belatedly, but in our
view, it is for those persons to make a grievance and definitely
not the Petitioners as they have never raised any objection.
Another submission of Mr.Srivastav is that they were only
made aware of the final result on 10/02/2026 which is also not of
any significance as after publishing result of the online
examination on 16/10/2025 interview letters were issued to the
eligible candidates and since the two Petitioners in WP
No.10724/2026 were not found to be eligible in the online
examination they were not called for interview.
15/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
In any case, the bank has stated before us on oath in an
Affidavit that the result of the online examination was published
on the website on 16/10/2025 and we have no reason to dispute
the said statement as the proof of it lies on the website.
16 Coming to the principal contention that despite the agency
viz. Workwell (Respondent No.6) being blacklisted on
05/02/2026, it submitted the final result along with the waiting
list to the bank on 06/02/2026.
In this regard, we must refer to the order passed by the
Principal Secretary on 05/02/2026, which is based upon the
report from the Commissioner dated 23/01/ 2026. A perusal of
the order dated 05/02/2026 would make it clear that it is not a
blacklisting order, but by the said order, it is declared that since
‘Workwell’ who conducted the recruitment process of Ratnagiri
and Satara District Central Cooperative Banks, has not followed
the directions contained in the Government Resolution dated
15/06/2018 strictly, its name is removed from the panel
maintained by the Commissioner, Co-operation and Registrar,
Pune. In our view, this order do not amount to black-listing.
17 As far as the second argument as to how could the agency
forward the result after its name was removed from the panel,
pursuant to order dated 05/02/2026, we must note that the dis-
empanelment of Respondent No.6 is on account of non
compliance of the directives issued by the Government while
implementing the recruitment process in Ratnagiri and Satara.
Moreso, the State Government did not cancel the procedure of
16/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
recruitment conducted by it , but it intended to do so by removing
its empanelment.
We have also carefully perused the report of the
Commissioner forwarded to the Principal Secretary on the basis
of which the order dated 05/02/2026 is passed, it being annexed
to the Petition. The said report recorded that the recruitment
process of District Central Co-operative Banks is to be conducted
through an Agency which is empanelled with the Commissioner.
Certain complaints were received in respect of recruitment
process implemented in Sangli, Satara, Ahilyanagar, Yavatmal,
Nanded, Ratnagiri, Thane as a result of which the Government on
31/10/2025 cancelled the earlier orders empanelling several
agencies and directed that the process shall only be implemented
through IBPS, TCS, MKCL. However, this resulted into filing of a
Writ Petition and the Court quashed and set aside the order and
afforded an opportunity of hearing to those agencies whose
empanelment was cancelled. Accordingly, the hearing was
scheduled with reference to 49 complaints that were received
which included 21 complaints in regards to recruitment process
in Thane.
The order record the nature of complaints and as far as
Thane DCC Bank is concerned, the complaints received, alleged
that the agency had no experience in conducting recruitment
process nor did it possess the necessary infrastructure for
conduct of the process, but still it was chosen to carry out the
recruitment process. One of the complaints also stated that the
final list was not published by the Bank nor it was forwarded to
17/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and no final result
was published.
Scrutinizing the complaints received alongwith the report
of inquiry, it is observed in the report that Workwell is a private
company and it did not observe transparency while conducting
the process. However, no complaints were received in respect of
IBPS or TCS, and, therefore, the recruitment process should be
carried out only through the said agencies. Even in the report of
the Commissioner, we do not find any accusation of fraud, but the
only complaint was that it did not follow the procedure as
prescribed by the Government and the process lacked
transparency.
In the wake of the aforesaid report and the order passed by
the Principal Secretary, since we are of the view that there is no
specific allegation about the process being carried out by
accepting money or any monetary consideration, but the only
reason of its dis-empanelment appear to be not carrying out the
process in a transparent manner.
18 It is also worth to note that the Principal Secretary has
passed an order for dis-empanelment by taking into consideration
the flaw that has been pointed out in the recruitment process
carried out by Respondent No.6 in Satara and Ratnagiri, but we
take it that if Respondent No.6 is disempanelled, then it is not
permissible for it to conduct recruitment process of any District
Central Co-operative Bank. However, in our view if the process
was completed in its entirety prior to order of its dis-
empanelment passed by the Principal Secretary on 05/02/2026,
18/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
we see no illegality in Respondent No.6 forwarding the result to
the Bank , for which it was engaged and if it would not have done
so the entire recruitment process carried, involving various
stages, would have gone waste.
In any case, in the order passed by the Principal Secretary,
there is no prohibition imposed that the process which was
carried out earlier by Respondent No.6 shall itself stand
cancelled, but with effect from 05/02/2026 Workwell’s name was
removed from the Government panel/list, indicating that in
future, the said agency could not be selected or could not be
assigned any task of implementing the recruitment process of
any DCC bank.
When on 06/02/2026 , Respondent No.6 forwarded the final
result alongwith the waiting list, it only reported about
culmination of the process implemented by it and has not
undertaken any process of recruitment after its dis-
empanelment.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention of the
learned counsel for the Petitioners to the effect that since the
results are forwarded on 06/02/2026, and it was published by
the Bank on 10/02/2026 on its website, and thereafter,
appointment letters/orders are issued, they are hit by the fact of
dis-empanelment of Respondent No.6 on 05/02/2026.
19 We have perused the order of dis-empanelment passed
against Respondent No.6, Workwell, but we have noted that the
process of recruitment was complete in all respects before its
name was directed to be removed from the panel maintained by
19/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
the Commissioner of Co-operation. The written examination was
already conducted and its result was declared and even the
interviews were held much prior to the date of its dis-
empanelment. In all sense, the process of recruitment was over.
It is worth to note that the only ground on which the order of
disempanelment is passed against Respondent NO.6 is, that it
failed to observe the stipulations in the Government Resolution,
but in the order, there is no recording of a finding that any
illegality was committed in the recruitment process conducted by
Workwell in respect of Thane DCC Bank.
Mere fact that instead of 165 posts, selection process was
carried out for 17 posts, in no way attribute any malice to the
agency as it is pertinent to note that there were many vacancies
in the Bank, in its branches at Thane and Palghar, as there are
117 branches, and, therefore, after the advertisement was issued
for 165 posts, a proposal was send to the Commissioner for
sanction of additional staff. On this proposal being approved, the
agency was informed about the recruitment process to be
implemented even covering the said 17 posts. In no case, it can
be construed as illegality and in any case the Bank has reserved
its right to increase or decrease the number of posts in the
Advertisement itself and none of the Petitioners who participated
in the process have demonstrated any prejudice. The process
for which the services of Respondent No.6 were engaged was
completed by holding interviews between 03/12/2025 to
11/12/2025 and the marks obtained by them were forwarded to
the Agency, but on the date of its removal i.e. with effect from
06/02/2026, the selection process was complete and on
20/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
09/02/2026 the bank, by passing a Board Resolution, took a
decision for declaration of the final result and, thereafter the
appointment orders were issued.
In absence of any specific illegality which would vitiate the
entire selection procedure, we are not justified in setting aside the
selection process as it has involved a lot of time, resources and
moreso, the candidates who have been selected have already
joined the post.
In any case, we find that when Respondent No.6
implemented the procedure of recruitment for filling up of posts
in Thane DCC Bank, it was empanelled and sufficiently
empowered to carry out the process. Merely because at a
subsequent time it was disempaneled, would not render the
process carried out by it which is otherwise not found to be illegal,
as no irregularity is attributed to it, we would like to invoke the
observations made by the Court of Appeal in England in Re
4
James , where Lord Denning, M.R., observed thus :-
“ He sits in the seat of a judge. He wears the robes of a judge. He holds
the office of a judge. Maybe he was not validly appointed. But, still, he
holds the office. It is the office that matters, not the incumbent…. So
long as the man holds the office, and exercises it duly and in
accordance with law, his orders are not a nullity. If they are
erroneous, they may be upset on appeal. But, if not, they should be
upheld.”
The aforesaid principle being applied by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Veerendra Kr. Gautam & Ors. vs. Karuna Nidhan
5
Upadhyay & Ors. the Apex Court clarified that the application of
de facto doctrine does not confer blanket validity upon acts
which are otherwise illegal and the doctrine cannot be invoked to
4 (1977) 2 WLR 1
5 (2016) 14 SCC 18
21/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
overlook independent illegality in the exercise of official
functions.
20 It is, therefore, to be kept in mind while applying the de
facto doctrine that whether such acts performed were aimed at
prevention of public and private mischief and for protection of
public and private interest. The doctrine is intended to prevent
invalidation of acts such as appointments, on the sole ground
that they were performed without de jure authority.
The principle being based on public policy and necessity,
ensuring continuity of public administration, but the illegality of
appointment to a public office by itself shall not invalidate
otherwise lawful acts performed by the holder of the office under
the apparent lawful authority.
The case before us stands on a far better footing as we note
that the order directing disempanelment of the Respondent
No.6 Workwell has also not attributed any illegality, but the
complaint against the Workwell appear to be for not following the
directives/ guidelines issued by the State Government strictly and
that too in respect of the Districts other than Thane. In any case
we have no quarrel about the proposition that once Workwell is
removed from the panel it cannot act as an authorized agency on
behalf of any District Central Co-operative Bank in conduct of its
recruitment process. However, as we have indicated for the
reason that much resources and time has been spent and
aspirations have been created since appointment orders are
issued in favour of the successful candidates we deem it
22/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
appropriate not to show any indulgence at this stage, when the
process is already over.
21 Another aspect which we must consider, as regards the two
Petitioners represented by Mr.Srivastav, is the well settled law to
the effect that the candidates who participated in the selection
process, are not permitted to turn around and question the
method of selection and its outcome.
6
In Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir the Apex
Court observed thus :-
"9. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by
the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the
petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the
petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral
interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged
successful as a result of their combined performance both at written
test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well
settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the
interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable
to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the
process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not
properly constituted. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla
it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this
Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without
protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination
he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court
should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."
7
In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar the Apex Court
reiterated the principles and observed thus :-
"16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in
the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks
have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to
challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's
name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed
of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he
6 (1995) 3 SCC 486
7 (2010) 12 SCC 576
23/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the
Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from
questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error
by refusing to entertain the writ petition."
8
In Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors. vs. Anil Joshi & Ors. the
principle was reiterated when the Apex Court held that having
taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the
recruitment was being made under the general rules, the
respondents had waived their right to question the
advertisement or the methodology adopted by the board for
making selection and the High Court had fallen in grave error by
entertaining the grievance made by the Respondent.
22 Reliance placed by Mr.Srivastav upon the decision in case
of State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee)
(supra), in no way take the case of the Petitioners any further as
what was involved was a selection process, which was found to be
vitiated by numerous malpractices including rank jumping,
candidates not in panel of short listed candidates recommended
and appointed, candidates not recommended by the selection
committee appointed by the board, manipulation of OMR scores,
etc. In an investigation being carried out by CBI, gross
illegalities were clearly flagged as it noted mismatch between the
OMR sheet evaluation and the marks recorded by the WBSSC.
Similarly there was also a discrepancy found in the number
of appointment letters and the recommendations made and that
is when it was concluded that the entire selection process was
vitiated due to illegalities and therefore, it was rightly declared
8 (2013) 11 SCC 309
24/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
null and void due to egregious violations and illegalities and
appointments of the candidates were cancelled. Since it was
difficult to segregate the tainted and untainted candidates who
might have been selected on merits, in the wake of the clear
finding of fraud and illegalities, the whole selection process came
to be cancelled.
The facts before us are in no way close to the one which
were before the Apex Court as the selection process was tainted
with malpractices, fraud and illegalities to an extent which had
an impact on the whole process and was so deeply rooted that
the Court found it difficult to segregate the valid from the invalid.
23 As far as the Petition represented by Mr. Singh is
concerned, we have already noted that Mr.Mohape lack locus to
institute the Writ Petition, but since we have already indicated
that we were examining the Petition filed by the two unsuccessful
candidates, we have heard arguments of Mr.Singh in support of
the cause in the Petition, but not the claims staked by the
Petitioner.
The two individual Petitioners Harshal Ravindra Pashte and
Sayali Santosh Ghige have participated in the whole process, but
they kept mum and 12 days after the result was declared , they
started making grievance by preferring various representations.
In any case, they do not make up even to the stage of interviews
and merely the fact that there are no individual communications
to them at every stage, is not relevant, as the learned senior
counsel Mr.Sakhare has demonstrated before us that time and
again the results were declared on the website of the Thane DCC
25/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14

J-4013-10724.odt
Bank and with such a huge process being carried out it is quite
possible the communication did not reach a few individuals, but
this ground in our view is not sufficient enough to set aside the
entire recruitment process.
24 For the reasons recorded above, we do not find merit in
both the Writ Petitions, since in our view in the absence of alleged
illegalities being demonstrated as to vitiate the entire
recruitment process, we find no ground to declare the
recruitment process conducted through Workwell for filling up
the posts in Thane DCC Bank, null and void.
In the wake of the above, both the Writ Petitions are
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
No order as to cost.
[ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.] [BHARATI DANGRE, J.]
26/26
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 15:18:14
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)