1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 251 OF 2010 Sudhakar S/o. Rangrao Dhumal and others. .. petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondent. --- Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. H.A. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 5th FEBRUARY, 2010. ORAL ORDER :- 1] The petitioners by filing this petition, have objected to the recruitment process initiated by the respondent No.2 Latur District Central Cooperative Bank with a view to fill in 169 posts, of Class III and Class IV. The main ground of challenge is that the respondent No.2 bank has not issued any public notice or advertisement inviting applications from the general public and have only called for the names from the Employment Exchange, University and Collector office. Relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court reported in 2008(1) Bom. C.R. 485, which in turn, places reliance on the Supreme Court judgments including the judgment reported in JT 1996(9) SC 638, learned counsel for petitioners 2 submits that the circular issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 19/11/2003 is statutory in nature, which mandates issuance of public advertisement before filling in the posts on the establishment of a cooperative bank. The submission is, that failure on the part of the bank to issue a public advertisement/notice for filling in the post, violate citizens right to have an opportunity to compete for the public employment. On notice being issued, the respondent No.2 has put in its appearance. 2] The prayer in the petition is to command the respondent No.2 to fill in the posts by scrupulously adhering to the requirements of circular dated 19/11/2003. The interim prayer made in the petition is to restrain the respondent No.2 bank from going ahead with the recruitment process. Vide the prayer clause (D), the petitioners are seeking orders to restrain the respondent No.2 from holding written examination, scheduled to be held on 7th February, 2010. 3] Advocate Shri Hon, appearing for the respondent NO.2 bank on instructions from the Managing Director, makes a categorical statement that the respondent No.2 bank will not hold the written examination scheduled to be held day after tomorrow i.e. 7th February, 2010. He assures this court that the bank will publish a public notice in a widely circulated newspaper inviting applications from the public at large with a view to fill in the posts. It is also stated that after the receipt of the applications pursuant to the advertisement, 3 which the respondent No.2 proposes to issue, all eligible candidates would be permitted to compete for the posts that are to be filled in. We accept the statement made by Shri Hon, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. In view of the statement so made, there is no need to pass any further order. 4] The learned counsel for the petitioners does not press Prayer clause (C) and seeks its deletion. The same is permitted. 5] It is made clear that after the respondent No.2 receives applications in response to the public notice/advertisement, which the bank proposes to issue, the bank shall consider the applications so received, so also the applications already received till date. In our view, this petition has served its purpose. Having regard to the statement made by Shri Hon, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 petition stands disposed of. Authenticated copy of this order be given to the parties, to act upon. [N.D. DESHPANDE,J.] [A.P. DESHPANDE.J.] Grt/-