These intra court appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the correctness and legality of the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 104674-675/2016 dated 24.03.2017 whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants are dismissed.

2. The writ petitions were filed by the appellants challenging the Notification dated 28.10.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent-Bank inviting applications for the posts of second division assistants. The Court framed the following question in the connected writ petition Nos.104721-25/2016:

“Whether the procedure adopted for selection of candidates for appointment is transparent and in consonance with law or is vitiated by illegality?”

3. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and analyzing the material on record, the Notification impugned has been held to be valid and the writ petitions were rejected in the said batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos.104721-25/2016). In the light of the said ruling, the arguments advanced at the hands of the learned counsel appearing for the parties was considered in the present petitions and the contentions of the petitioners has been negated by passing a detailed order. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are in appeal.

4. Learned counsel Shri F.V. Patil, appearing for the appellants would contend that Rule 17(2)(B) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short ‘the Rules 1960’) contemplates that the candidate must be a graduate from any recognized University established by law in India. The 3rd respondent has prescribed minimum of 60% marks for general category and 55% marks for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in BA/B.Sc./B.Com degree obtained from the recognized University as the eligibility/qualification for appointment of second division assistants, which is contrary to the said Rules.

5. Nextly, it was contended that allotting 25% of marks for interview and 75% marks for written examination is against the Government Order dated 22.08.2013 which specifically prescribes, a minimum of 85% marks for written examination and 15% marks in oral examination for the appointments to be made by the Co-operative Societies in terms of Section 30-B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’).

6. Thirdly, it was argued that the respondent No.3 has filed statement of objections in the writ proceedings that the 1st appellant has not filed the application itself, hence, he has no locus standi to question the selection process which is wholly unjustifiable. The eligibility conditions stipulated in the notification impugned, disqualified the appellant No.1 to submit the applications which otherwise he was duly qualified for the said post. Appellant No.1 is not espousing any public cause but being an aggrieved person has challenged the notification impugned. The second appellant applied for the post under Scheduled Caste category. The said appellant has secured 49.15% in the qualifying degree examination, minimum requirement to apply under the said category as per Notification being 55%, she was ineligible to be qualified for the written examination. The Notification issued by the 3rd respondent being contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules as well as the Government Order dated 22.08.2013, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned notification.

7. The learned Single Judge while calculating on the scale of 100% with the total marks of 200 relating to the viva-voce examination held that 12.5% would be the percentage stipulated which is below 15% as directed by the State and hence, it is not controverted. It was argued that mode of computation and the decision arrived at, in calculating the percentage inasmuch as viva-voce is erroneous.

8. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Jayakumar S.Patil, appearing for respondent No.3 has raised the preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of th