Karnataka High Court
The Tumkur Milk Producers vs T B Venugopal on 30 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1008 OF 2021 (S-RES)
C/W.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1133 OF 2021 (S-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1236 OF 2021 (S-RES)
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1008 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
K. MADHUSUDHAN
S/O KAVALAPPA A.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT. 11TH CROSS, ASHOKNAGARA
BESIDE MANJUNATH MEDICALS
TUMAKURU-572 101
...APPELLANT
(By SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE TUMKUR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES UNION LTD.
NH-206, B.H. ROAD
MALLASANDRA
TUMAKURU-572 107
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ALI ASKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
-
2
3. SRI. KONDAVADI CHANDRASHEKAR
PRESIDENT
THE TUMKUR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES UNION LTD.
NH-206, B.H. ROAD
MALLASANDRA
TUMAKURU-572 107
4. SRI. T.B. VENUGOPAL
S/O T.B. BORE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
CARE OF DR. VIJAY KUMAR
VIJAYA HOSPITAL, BANASHANKARI
TUMAKURU-572 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VARUN JAYAKUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
Prof. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
19.08.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WRIT PETITION No.52059/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1133 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
THE TUMKUR MILK PRODUCERS
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNION LTD.
NH-206, B.H. ROAD
MALLASANDRA, TUMAKURU-572 107
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAHAMAD TAHIR A., ADVOCATE)
-
3
AND:
1. T.B. VENUGOPAL
S/O T.B. BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
C/O DR. VIJAY KUMAR
VIJAYA HOSPITAL
BANASHANKARI
TUMAKURU-572 102
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ALI ASKRA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
3. SRI. KONDAVADI CHANDRASHEKAR
PRESIDENT
THE TUMKUR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES UNION LTD.
NH-206, B.H. ROAD
MALLASANDRA
TUMAKURU-572 107
4. K. MADHUSUDHAN
S/O KAVALAPPA A.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT. 11TH CROSS
ASHOKNAGAR
BESIDE MANJUNATH MEDICALS
TUMAKURU-572 102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY Prof. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/R1;
SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.52059/2017 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-
4
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1236 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
SRI. KONDAVADI CHANDRASHEKAR
PRESIDENT
AGED 50 YEARS
THE TUMKUR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES UNION LTD.
NH-206, B.H. ROAD
MALLASANDRA
TUMAKURU-572 107
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE TUMKUR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES UNION LTD.
NH-206, B.H. ROAD
MALLASANDRA, TUMAKURU-572 107
RERPESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
No.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
3. K. MADHUSUDHAN
S/O KAVALAPPA A.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT. 11TH CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR
BESIDE MANJUNATH MEDICALS
TUMAKURU-572 101
4. SRI. T.B. VENUGOPAL
S/O T.B. BORE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
CARE OF DR. VIJAY KUMAR
VIJAYA HOSPITAL, BANASHANKARI
TUMAKURU-572 101
...RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VARUN JAYAKUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
-
5
SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
Prof. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.52059/2017 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.10.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
These writ appeals are filed challenging the judgment
dated 19.08.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.52059/2017.
2. W.A.No.1008/2021 is filed by respondent No.4,
W.A.No.1133/2021 is filed by respondent No.1 and
W.A.No.1236 is filed by respondent No.3.
3. We have heard Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned
Senior Counsel as instructed by Shri Mohammed Tahir,
learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1133/2021 and
-
as instructed by Shri Varun Jayakumar Patil learned counsel
for respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.1008/2021 and 1236/2021,
Shri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for the appellant in
W.A.No.1008/2021 for respondent No.4 in
W.A.No.1133/2021 and for respondent No.3 in
W.A.No.1236/2021 and Shri Devi Prasad Shetty, learned
counsel for appellant in W.A.No.1236/2021, for respondent
No.3 in W.A.No.1133/2021 and W.A.No.1008/2021 and Prof.
Ravi Varma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, as instructed by
Shri Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for caveator/respondent
No.4 in W.A.No.1008/2021 and in W.A.No.1236/2021 and
also for caveator/respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1133/2021 and
Shri. Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the official respondent No.2 in all the appeals.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant that the appellant/respondent No.4 in
W.A.No.1008/2021 filed a writ petition challenging the
appointment of the appellant as Assistant Manager MIS in
the first respondent society. The first respondent had issued
a notification on 29.02.2016, inviting applications for various
-
posts, including one for Assistant Manager MIS in the
General Merit (GM) category, which required a distinction in
the MCA course and two years of experience in an officer's
post. The selection process involved a written examination
and an interview. Five candidates, including the appellant,
were short-listed for the interview held on 21.04.2017. The
appellant scored 46.7 marks, leading to his appointment.
5. It is further submitted that the fourth respondent
challenged the appointment and alleged in the Writ Petition
that the appointment of the appellant was influenced by his
close association with the third respondent, the president of
the first respondent society and a member of the interview
committee. It was contended that the appellant, a political
disciple of the third respondent, utilized this relationship to
secure a higher score in the interview, thereby
overshadowing the performance of the fourth respondent,
who had achieved superior marks in the written
examination. The fourth respondent cited social media posts
from 30.03.2016, depicting the appellant celebrating the
birthday of the respondent, as evidence of their close
-
affiliation, arguing that this connection vitiated the
appointment process due to bias and legal malafides.
6. Though the appellant and the first respondent
denied the allegations and contended that the writ is not
maintainable, citing the availability of an alternative remedy
under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies
Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1959' for
short), and asserted that the mere fact that another
candidate scored higher marks in the examination does not
entitle the fourth respondent to contest the appointment,
the learned Single Judge accepted the vague allegations of
bias and set aside the appointment.
7. It is further contended that the allegations of bias
were vague and fanciful and the acquaintance of the parties
was totally insufficient to arrive at any finding of legal
malafides. The Selection Committee being statutory in
nature, the contention that the President ought to have
abstained from the selection was absurd. Further, it is
stated that the committee consisted of several independent
-
persons including a department nominee and the findings
are therefore unjustified.
8. It is further contended that the Hon'ble Apex
Court, in Hari Banesh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and
Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 655, has held that the
Writ Court cannot interfere with administrative decisions
regarding the suitability of candidates unless there is a
violation of statutory rules. In the present case, there was
no such violation. Further, the decision in Dr. Duryodhan
Sahu & Ors v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Others reported
in (1998) 7 SCC 273, is relied on to contend that the
learned Single Judge should not have embarked on an
independent investigation into the qualifications of the
selected candidate once the concerned authorities are
satisfied. It is further contended that the learned Single
Judge also erred in failing to follow the principle that courts
should be reluctant to substitute their own views for those of
experts, especially in matters of evaluating answers or
selection processes.
-
9. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge
exceeded the prayers sought for by quashing the selection
and further directing re-conduct of the selection and the
appointment of the writ petitioner if no one else responds.
Moreover, it is contended that the fact that mere
performance in the written test does not guarantee similar
performance in the viva-voce and expert assessments in the
viva-voce cannot be undermined without proper material. It
is contended that the appellant, who has been in service for
four years since 08.05.2017, has now been thrown out
without any proper reason.
10. It is further contended that the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 09.06.2021 calling for the
records for the selection was not justified in the light of the
sketchy pleadings as to bias and legal malafides. It is
contended that the scrutinizing of marks allotted by the
selection committee after calling for the original records,
was beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. The judgment of
the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of
UP and Others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, Courts
-
should refrain from substituting their views for those of
experts. Additionally, the failure to provide adequate
opportunity to the parties to defend their case, along with
the fact that the other members of the selection committee
and the other candidates who appeared in the selection were
not made party to the Writ Petition constitutes a violation of
natural justice. On these contentions, the judgment is
sought to be challenged.
11. In support of the above contentions, the following
decisions are relied on:-
• Swati Ulhas Kerkar and others v. Sanjay Walavalkar
and others, reported in (2021) 14 SCC 57;
• Election Commission of India and another v.
Dr.Subramaniam Swamy and another, reported in
(1996) 4 SCC 104;
• Minu Lalitha Madhavu v. University of Kerala, reported
in 2018 SCC Online Ker 5710;
• Abhimeet Sinha & Others v. High Court of Judicature
at Patna and others, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 262;
• Srinivas K Gouda v. Karnataka Institute of Medical
Science & others reported in (2022) 1 SCC 49;
• Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and others v. Dr. B.S.
Mahajan and others reported in (1990) 1 SCC 305;
-
• Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public
Service Commission, Patna & others reported in (2004)
6 SCC 714;
• M.V.Thimmaiah & others v. Union Public Service
Commission & others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 119;
• Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & others
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 655;
• Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya
& others reported in (2018) 15 SCC 796;
• Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar reported in
(2021) 8 SCC 347;
• Dr.Duryodhan Sahu & Others v. Jithendra Kumar
Mishra & others reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273;
• Mohd. Mustafa v. Union of India & others reported in
(2022) 1 SCC 294;
• Madras Institute of Development Studies & another v.
K.Sivasubramaniyan and others reported in (2016) 1
SCC 454;
• Madan Lal & others v. State of J & K and others
reported in AIR 1995 SC 1088;
• Lalu Prasad Alias Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of
Jharkhand reported in (2013) 8 SCC 593;
• Indian Airlines Corporation v. Capt. K.C.Shukla and
others reported in (1993) 1 SCC 17;
• Union Public Service Commission v. Hiranyalal Dev
and others reported in AIR 1988 SC 1069;
• Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain
Abbas Rizwi and another reported in (2012) 13 SCC 61;
-
• Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357;
• High Court of Tripura, through the Registrar General
v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others reported in
(2019) 16 SCC 663;
• Central Board of Secondary Education through
Secretary and others v. Khushboo Shrivastava and
others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 523; and
• Kuldip Chand v. State of H.P. and others reported in
AIR 1997 SC 2606.
12. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant in W.A.No.1133/2021 and the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant in the connected appeals
supported the contentions of the appellant in Writ Appeal
No.1008/2021. It is further urged that in the absence of
any clear pleadings, the acceptance of the contentions as to
bias by the learned Single Judge was unwarranted.
13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first
respondent - Writ Petitioner in W.A.No.1133/2021
contended that the clear pleadings of bias were un-
controverted before the learned Single Judge. It is submitted
that though the fourth respondent had entered appearance
-
before the learned Single Judge, no written objections were
filed and there was no appearance for the third respondent.
It is further submitted that in the light of the prayer raised
in the Writ Petition, the relief granted by the learned Single
Judge was perfectly legal. Further, it is contended that this
Court exercising its extra-ordinary original writ jurisdiction
and considering a prayer for a writ of certiorari is completely
within its powers in calling for the records of a selection,
which is allegedly vitiated by bias and legal malafides.
14. In support of his contentions, he has placed
reliance on the following judgments:-
• T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner of India v.
Union of India and others reported in (1995) 4 SCC
611;
• G.N.Nayak v. Goa University & others reported in
(2002) 2 SCC 712;
• Charanjit Singh and others v. Harinder Sharma and
others reported in (2002) 9 SCC 732; and
• P.K.K.Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and
others reported in (1989) 1 SCC 526.
15. The learned Single Judge has specifically
considered the question as to maintainability of the Writ
-
Petition and has entered a clear finding that in the light of
the clear language of Section 70 of the Act of 1959, the Writ
Petition was maintainable. Further, on a consideration of the
facts pleaded and the materials on record, the learned
Single Judge came to the definite conclusion that the
selection was clearly vitiated by a "real likelihood of bias"
and legal malafides. The allegations raised by the petitioners
were found to be well founded on the basis of the materials
relied on.
16. We have considered the contentions advanced.
There is no dispute raised in the Writ Petition that the writ
petitioner as well as the fourth respondent therein, who is
the appellant in W.A.No.1008/2021 were qualified for
appointment to the post of Assistant Manager MIS in the
General Merit category. They had both applied pursuant to
the Notification dated 29.02.2016. A written examination
was conducted on 18.12.2016 in which, the writ petitioner
secured 102 marks, which was the highest marks secured by
a candidate in the examination while the selected candidate
scored only 77 marks. Thereafter, interview was conducted
-
on 21.04.2017, in which the third respondent against whom
the allegations of bias are raised had participated as
Chairperson of the Selection Committee. In the interview,
the petitioner was given 0.5 marks by all the members of
the Committee and the total marks obtained was 2.5. The
appellant was given 2.5 marks by two of the interviewers
and three marks by the others, taking this total to 14 and
the total marks obtained to 46.7, thus, making him eligible
for appointment.
17. On a consideration of these facts, the learned
Single Judge came to the definite conclusion that the
selection was vitiated by a real likelihood of bias. The
allegation raised in the writ petition along with the clear
discrepancy in the marks awarded was found to be sufficient
to support an allegation of "real likelihood of bias". The
learned Single Judge therefore only directed the re-doing of
the selection from the stage of interview.
18. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
are unable to accept the contention that the allegation of
bias and malafides are so far fetched as was required to be
-
rejected by the learned Single Judge as figments of the writ
petitioners' imagination. The learned Single Judge has
clearly found that the allegations of bias raised in the writ
petition and the fact that the third respondent had
participated in the selection were sufficient to substantiate a
"real likelihood of bias" in the instant case.
19. The contentions that the non-impleading of the
other members of the committee and the other participants
in the interview, cannot be accepted as bias was specifically
urged against the appellant in W.A.No.1236/2021 who
admittedly participated in the selection as Chairman of the
Selection Committee. The relief granted being only for a re-
doing of the selection from the stage of interview, the non
impleadment of the other candidates, who were
unsuccessful in the interview, would also not be fatal at all.
20. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for
the appellants are either in cases where no bias or malafides
were alleged or where the Courts, on a scrutiny of the
pleadings and materials found that the allegations made
were too flimsy or flighty to be taken seriously by a
-
Constitutional Court. However, we are considering a case
where a learned Single Judge of this Court, considering a
writ petition, in exercise of the extra-ordinary original
jurisdiction vested in this Court, found real likelihood of bias
and on that basis, scrutinized the records of the selection
and came to a conclusion that the allegations are well
founded.
21. The contention that the order calling for the
records of the selection was unjustified cannot also be
accepted in the facts of this case since the learned Single
Judge was considering a petition for issue of a writ of
certiorari. In the instant case, the third respondent was not
a high constitutional functionary to instill confidence of his
impartiality in this Court. It was on considering the nature
of the relationship also that the learned single Judge came
to the conclusion that there is a prima facie likelihood of
bias. It appears that it was to verify whether such
impression was justified that the mark sheets were called for
on an examination of which it was concluded that the
selection was vitiated by bias. In the nature of the relief
-
granted, we are of the opinion that no interference is called
for in these intra-court appeals.
22. The appeals fail and the same are accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
cp*
