Bombay HC Leaves 182 Thane DCC Bank Appointments Intact, Says Agency’s Later Removal From Panel Didn’t Invalidate Recruitment

Thane District Central Co-operative Bank conducted recruitment for 165 posts through Workwell Infotech Pvt. Ltd., an agency then on the Commissioner of Co-operation’s panel.

The advertisement reserved the Bank’s right to increase or decrease the number of posts; 17 additional posts were later included, taking the total to 182.

The Bank stated that the online examination results were published and interviews were held before Workwell was removed from the panel on 5 February 2026.

Workwell submitted the final results on 6 February; the Bank approved and published them, issued appointment letters, and the selected candidates joined.

Two unsuccessful candidates challenged the process, alleging breaches of Government Resolutions governing recruitment, lack of transparency, the addition of posts without a fresh advertisement, and Workwell’s disempanelment.

A separate petitioner, claiming through a society that held shares in the Bank, also challenged the process and sought relief against the Bank’s directors.

Section 79A(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 empowered the State to issue directions governing recruitment by District Central Co-operative Banks; the Government Resolutions dated 15 June 2018 and 23 June 2022 prescribed an online, transparent recruitment procedure and use of authorised agencies from the approved panel.

Section 10A(2A) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 was invoked in the claim concerning directors’ disqualification, but the Court rejected that relief because the petitioner lacked locus.

The Court applied the de facto doctrine, which protects acts performed under apparent authority from invalidation solely because of a defect in the officeholder’s authority, while not curing independent illegality.

It also applied the rule that a candidate who knowingly participates in a selection process generally cannot challenge its method after an unsuccessful result.

The Court distinguished State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee), (2025) 11 SCC 126, where pervasive fraud and irregularities had tainted the selection.

The Court held that the first petitioner was neither a Bank member or shareholder in his personal capacity nor a recruitment participant or public-interest litigant, and therefore lacked locus; his claim concerning the directors was rejected.

As to the participating candidates, the advertisement expressly contemplated changes in the number of posts and provided for filling additional vacancies from the waiting list; the Court found no demonstrated prejudice from adding 17 posts.

It accepted the Bank’s sworn statement that the examination results had been published and found the candidates’ communication and answer-key complaints insufficient to invalidate the entire process.

The 5 February order removed Workwell from the panel but was not a blacklisting order and did not cancel the Thane recruitment.

Since the examinations and interviews had already concluded, and the order identified no illegality in Workwell’s Thane process, the Court found no basis to invalidate the agency’s later transmission of results.

The unsuccessful candidates had participated without timely objection, and the record did not establish fraud or pervasive illegality comparable to Baishakhi Bhattacharyya.

The Court dismissed both writ petitions and discharged the rule, finding no demonstrated illegality sufficient to nullify the recruitment process; it made no order as to costs.