Point of Law: Disputes which may be referred to Registrar for decision - There cannot be any hard-and-fast rule of universal application for allocating the marks for viva voce vis-a-vis marks for written examination and consequently percentage indicated therein alone cannot be touchstone in all cases. What ultimately required to be ensured is as to whether allocation, as such is with an oblique intention and whether it is so arbitrary as capable of being abused and misused in its exercise.

ORDER :

The petitioner in this writ petition seeks the following prayers:

Hold that the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Assistant Manager MIS Systems in the respondent No.1-Society is non est and is completely vitiated by bias and legal malafides and

(b) Consequentially direct the respondent No.1-Society to appoint the petitioner to the said post of Assistant Manager MIS and

(c) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

In terms of the aforesaid prayer, the petitioner seeks to declare/hold the appointment of respondent No.4 as Assistant Manager MIS in the respondent No.1-Society to be non est and vitiated by bias and malafides.

2. Sans unnecessary details, facts in brief, are as follows:-

On 29-02-2016 the respondent No.1/Tumkur Milk Producers Co-operative Societies Union Limited (hereinafter referred to ‘the Society’ for short) issued a notification calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to various posts in the Society, one of which was the post of Assistant Manager MIS in GM category who possess MCA and experience in an officer’s post by conduct of written examination and interview. The petitioner and respondent No.4 among others participated in the selection process which resulted in the appointment of respondent No.4 being made ignoring the claim of the petitioner for such appointment. It is this appointment of respondent No.4 that the petitioner calls in question in this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Varun J.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Smt Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 and Sri Chandrakanth R.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Abhinay Y.T. would submit that the appointment of respondent No.4 is vitiated by official bias towards the respondent No.4 as respondent No.4 is a person who has complete acquaintance of the respondent No.3, who is the President of the Society. It is his further contention that marks obtained by respondent No.4 in the written examination was so abysmally low, that he was given a boost deliberately in the interview to enable his selection which is on account of his acquaintance with the respondent No.3. He would further submit that the respondent No.3 is impleaded as a party by name alleging bias.

5. On the other hand, Sri.Varun J.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-Society would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable and a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 has to be raised as it concerns the dispute of an employee of the Co-operative Society. He would further contend that mere acquaintance of the respondent No.4 with the respondent No.3 would not annul the appointment as it is not the respondent No.3 alone who was the Member of the Selection Committee but there were four other Members who have awarded marks to each of the candidates and would submit that the selection of respondent No.4 cannot be annulled on that ground.

6. Learned counsel Sri Chandrakanth R.Patil appearing for the selected candidate-respondent No.4 would toe the lines of submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and would submit that mere tweet or projecting on face-book with regard to the acquaintance of the respondent No.4 with the respondent No.3 would not annul the appointment.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

8. At the outset, I deem it appropriate to consider the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 that the writ peti