1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1023/2011 WASUDEO KHARODE AND ANOTHER ..VS.. AKOLA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BNAK 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 petitioners seek a declaration that the procedure adopted by the respondent bank in filling up the post of Junior Clerk is illegal. The petitioners had applied for appointment on the post of Junior Clerk in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondent in daily Lokmat, dated 17.6.2010. According to the petitioners the petitioners belong to open category and were eligible for appointment on the post of Junior Clerk. The petitioners appeared at the written examination and it is the case of the petitioners that they were expecting the interview calls, but the respondent did not call the petitioners for interview. The petitioners claimed that they secured 40 marks out of 75 in the written examination and therefore the respondent was liable to call the petitioners for interview. According to the petitioners, the selection list prepared by the respondent bank was not based on the marks secured by the candidates who appeared at the written examination. 2 The respondents filed the reply and stated that that the petitioners appeared at the written examination and since they were unsuccessful, they were not called for the interview. According to the respondent, 208 successful candidates were called for the interview and the petitioner no.1 had secured only 34 marks, whereas the petitioner no.2 had secured 39 marks. Since the petitioners no.1 and 2 were at serial no. 539 and 273 respectively in the order of merit and only 208 successful candidates were called for interview, the petitioners had not been called for the interview held by the respondent on 13.1.2011. On perusal of the petition and the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, it appears that the petitioners were rightly not called for the interview as the petitioners had secured less marks than the 208 candidates who were called for the interview. Even otherwise, the petitioners having participated at the written examination, cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process or the advertisement issued by the respondent on 17.6.2010. the petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE SMP