Full Judgment Text
2015:BHC-AS:7628-DB
dgm 1 15-wp-7559-14.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7559 OF 2014
1 Vishal Nandkumar Dhadvad
Indira Nagar No.3, Nahur Road,
Near Mehul Cinema, Near Ashok Nagar,
Mulund (West), Mumbai 400 080
2 Sandeep Dharmpal Lohat
R/o. Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Near S.T.C.
Society Gate, N.S. Fadke Marg,
Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 069,
3 Vinayak Devidas Sonawane,
R/No.22 Shivshakti Nagar,
Sant Kakkayya Marg, Dharavi,
Cross Road, Mumbai,Dharavi 17
4 Chetan Waman Sarode,
R/No.05, Sachin Patil Chawl,
Near Charu Pama School,
Kopargaon, Thane
5 Sangeeta Satish Kirtawade,
Building No.195, R/No. 7590,
Kannamwar Nagar2,
Vikroli (East),Mumbai 400083 .... Petitioners
vs
1 Central Bank of India, Chairman
and Managing Director
Chandramukhi Building,
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021,
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:45 :::
dgm 2 15-wp-7559-14.sxw
2 Senior Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India, South Mumbai,
st
Regional Office, 1 Floor,
Standard Building, DN Road,
Mumbai 400 001
3 The Secretary, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Finance and Banking,
Jeevandeep Bldg., Parliament Street,
New Delhi110 001 .... Respondents
Dr. Suresh Tatoba Mane with Ms. Babita Pandey for the
petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Talsania, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sagar Sheth and
with Radha Ved I/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi and Co. for
respondents 1 and 2.
Mr. Vinod Joshi with Lata Patne for respondent No.3.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
K. R. SHRIRAM, JJ.
DATE : March 20, 2015
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta,J.):
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of parties.
2 The Petitioners, though selected, but not appointed
because the RespondentCentral Bank by taking note of various
2/4
::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:45 :::
dgm 3 15-wp-7559-14.sxw
materials including the stated malpractice decided to discontinue
the whole recruitment process though advertised and accordingly
filed an affidavit dated 4.10.2014 on record.
3 The decision so taken by the RespondentBank in the
background just cannot be tested in this writ petition as various
factual aspects need to be considered. Even otherwise, the decision
so taken just cannot be interferedwith at the instance of Petitioners
on the stated doctrine of legitimate expectation. [ (2009) 1 SCC
180) ].
4 It is not the case of the RespondentBank that they have
appointed anyone based upon the said advertisement. Therefore,
the submission that having once selected, the Petitioners should
have been considered for the post as prayed and/or at least
opportunity should have been given and/or detailed inquiry
ought to have have been conducted cannot be accepted. It is
settled that such selected candidates have no right to be
appointed merely because they appeared in the examination
and/or found place in the select list. The question of
arbitrary or discriminatory appointment is also not the issue in the
3/4
::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:45 :::
dgm 4 15-wp-7559-14.sxw
present case as noone is appointed on the basis of the said
selected list. This action/decision of the RespondentBank is not
within the purview of judicial review.
5 The learned senior counsel appearing for the
RespondentBank has also relied upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in S.S. Balu and anr. v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2
SCC 479 , and reiterated the submission based upon the principle
of law that even selected candidates do not have legal right in this
behalf.
6 Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and in view
of the undisputed position of facts as well as law so recorded above,
no case is made out. The writ petition is dismissed.
7 Rule is discharged accordingly.
8 No costs.
(K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
4/4
::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:31:45 :::