Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, T.B. Venugopal, applied for the post of Assistant Manager MIS in the Tumkur Milk Producers Co-operative Societies Union Limited pursuant to a notification dated 29-02-2016. The selection process consisted of a written examination and interview. The petitioner and the fourth respondent were among the candidates. The fourth respondent was appointed to the post. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a declaration that the appointment of the fourth respondent was non est and vitiated by bias and legal malafides, and a direction to the Society to appoint the petitioner. He alleged that the fourth respondent had a close acquaintance with the third respondent, the President of the Society, and that deliberately high marks were awarded in the interview to compensate for his abysmally low written marks. The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the dispute was one between an employee and the Society under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and that the petitioner should avail the alternate, efficacious remedy by raising a dispute before the Registrar. They argued that mere acquaintance did not vitiate the selection and that the selection committee comprised four other members apart from the President. The court examined Section 70 of the Act, which provides for reference of disputes touching the constitution, management, or business of a co-operative society to the Registrar, including disputes between a society and its employees. It noted that the petitioner was not an employee of the Society but an outsider seeking appointment. Relying on the Division Bench decision in Jyotiba Yellappa Jadhav v. Hubli Co-operative Cotton Sales Society Ltd., which held that the bar of civil court jurisdiction under the Act is limited to matters where all parties have the necessary nexus with the society, and the Supreme Court decision in Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Samijuddin Ahmed, which distinguished between a workman and a mere applicant for employment, the court concluded that the dispute did not fall within the ambit of Section 70. It further observed that the power of the High Court under Article 226 is not ousted by the availability of an alternate remedy, which is a self-imposed restriction and not an absolute bar. Consequently, the court rejected the preliminary objection on maintainability and held that the writ petition was maintainable. The order did not finally determine the challenge on merits, as the text of the judgment ends after stating that the submission was rejected.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Constitution of India, Article 226, Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Section 70 - The petitioner, an applicant for the post of Assistant Manager MIS who participated in the selection process but was not selected, challenged the appointment of the fourth respondent on grounds of bias. The respondent Society raised a preliminary objection that the dispute fell under Section 70 of the Act and the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court, relying on Jyotiba Yellappa Jadhav v. Hubli Co-operative Cotton Sales Society Ltd. and Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Samijuddin Ahmed, held that a person seeking employment and not yet an employee does not come within the scope of a dispute under Section 70, and therefore the writ petition was maintainable. It further observed that the existence of an alternate remedy does not bar exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the alternate remedy under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
Final Decision
The Court rejected the preliminary objection on maintainability and held that the writ petition is maintainable. The matter was to be heard on merits, but the judgment text ends without recording any final direction on the prayers.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not barred by the existence of an alternate remedy if the petitioner is not an employee falling within the scope of a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act
- 1959
- a person who has merely applied for a post and participated in selection process but not yet appointed is not an employee for the purposes of that section
- the power of constitutional courts under Article 226 is unfettered and the rule of alternate remedy is self-imposed and not a bar to jurisdiction.
