1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1155/2011 ANGAD DEOKE ..VS.. AKOLA DISTRICT CENTRAL COPERATIVE BANK LIMITED - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.S. Warulkar, adv for petitioner Shri A.P. Tathod adv for respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST, 08 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the procedure adopted by the respondent bank in filling up the post of Banking officer in Grade II is illegal and bad in law. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was duly qualified for appointment on the post of Banking Officer Grade II and had applied to the respondent in pursuance of the advertisement dated 17.6.2010. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner had fared well in the written examination and was expecting an interview call. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was however not called for the interview as the respondent wanted to appoint the person of their choice. It is the case of the petitioner that the advertisement issued on 17.6.2010 is illegal as it is not signed by the authority concerned and the respondent bank had also not sought the permission of the Commissioner, Cooperation Pune before issuance of the advertisement. According to the petitioner the entire selection process adopted by the respondent bank is vitiated and cannot be sustained. 2 On perusal of the writ petition and of the reply filed by the respondent, it appears that the respondent had rightly not called the petitioner for interview. The petitioner had secured only 19 marks at the written examination. The respondent no.1 had called 39 candidates for interview and all the candidates called for the interview had secured much more marks than the petitioner. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner, by placing reliance on the decision reported in 2004(2) ALL MR Page 457 that a candidate who has participated in the selection process in pursuance of the advertisement without objection cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process or the advertisement at a later point of time. In this case also the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the advertisement on the ground that no permission was obtained by the respondent from the concerned authority before issuance of the advertisement and that the advertisement was not signed by any authority of the respondent bank after the petitioner had appeared at the written examination and had failed. Since the petition is devoid of merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE SMP