CWP No.3366 of 1994 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No.3366 of 1994 Date of decision: 08.04.2011 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Limited and others. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhawala, Advocate. Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate,for respondent No.1. Mr.AP Setia, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. The petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent Nos.4 to 10 to the posts of Junior Clerks made by respondent No.1-Bank. It is alleged that the private respondents do not possess the requisite qualification and some of them are relations of the members of the Board of Directors. It is further alleged that the petitioner has better qualifications than the private respondents being a graduate and thus, is more meritorious and eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Clerk. Petitioner claims that he submitted an application for his appointment as Junior Clerk but the official respondents have not considered the same while appointing the private respondents. Respondent No.1 in his reply has refuted the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that at the time of recruitment of the private respondents, the Cooperative Financing Institutions Service Rules, 1958, were applicable to the Cooperative Financing Institutions and even after re-organization w.e.f. 1.11.1996, the said rules were made applicable to CWP No.3366 of 1994 2 respondent No.1-Bank. Registrar, Cooperative Societies did not amend any rule and thus the old rules continue to be applicable to the respondent No.1-Bank. It is stated that the private respondents were duly qualified at the time of appointment. Respondents have specifically denied the allegations of the petitioner regarding relationship of the private respondents with any of the members of the Board of Directors. It is stated that none of the private respondent has relationship with any of the members of the Board of Directors. Respondents have also raised objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition against respondent No.1-Bank which is registered as Cooperative Society under the provisions of the Cooperative Act. Without going into the question of maintainability of the writ petition, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds: 1. There is no specific allegation levelled against any of the selectees, i.e. respondent Nos.4 to 10 regarding their qualification. Neither required qualification is specified nor qualification possessed by the private respondents has been disclosed. In what manner the private respondents lack qualifications is not disclosed or alleged. 2. Relationship of the selectees with any of the members of the Board of Directors is not specified to enable this Court to conduct scrutiny of the same. Allegations are totally vague inviting no judicial intervention. 3. Petitioner claims to have made application in CWP No.3366 of 1994 3 September, 1993. Respondents in their reply particularly in paragraphs 4,6 and 7 have specifically stated that the petitioner never applied for any post in question lying with respondent No.1-Bank. All these questions are disputed questions of fact and without any specific averments in the writ petition, no intervention is warranted. Apart from above, it seems that the selection of the private respondents was made somewhere in the year 1993-94. This petition remained pending for over a period of about 17 years and at this belated stage it is not prudent to consider the claim of the petitioner particularly in absence of any specific challenge to the appointments of the private respondents. For the above mentioned reasons, this petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) 08.04.2011 JUDGE BLS