Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Sri Maninga Ullagaddi and Smt. Neeta Manjrekar, filed writ petitions challenging a Notification dated 28.10.2015 issued by the Belgaum District Central Co-operative Bank inviting applications for the posts of Second Division Assistants. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, leading to these intra-court appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The court framed the question whether the selection procedure was transparent and in consonance with law. After considering arguments and analyzing material on record, the court held the notification valid and rejected the writ petitions. The appeals were dismissed as the impugned order did not warrant interference.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Transparency - The court examined whether the selection procedure for Second Division Assistants was transparent and legal. Held that the notification and selection process were valid and not vitiated by illegality (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the procedure adopted for selection of candidates for appointment is transparent and in consonance with law or is vitiated by illegality?
Final Decision
The appeals are dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.03.2017 in W.P. Nos.104674-675/2016 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Recruitment procedure
- Transparency in selection
- Validity of notification
- Karnataka High Court Act
- 1961 Section 4
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (02) 36
Writ Appeal Nos.100260-261/2017 (S-RES)
S. Sujatha, John Michael Cunha
Sri F.V. Patil (for appellants), Sri C.S. Patil (GA for R1 and R2), Sri Jayakumar S. Patil (Sr. Adv. for Sri Gangadhar J.M., Adv for C/R-3)
Sri Maninga S/o Nagappa Ullagaddi and Smt. Neeta D/o Shrimant Manjrekar
The State of Karnataka, The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and The Belgaum District Central Co-operative Bank
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Intra-court appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing writ petitions.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.03.2017 and allow the writ petitions.
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged the Notification dated 28.10.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent-Bank inviting applications for the posts of Second Division Assistants.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions (W.P. Nos.104674-675/2016) on 24.03.2017, following the ruling in connected writ petitions (W.P. Nos.104721-25/2016) where the notification was held valid.
Issues
Whether the procedure adopted for selection of candidates for appointment is transparent and in consonance with law or is vitiated by illegality?
Ratio Decidendi
The selection procedure adopted by the Bank was transparent and in consonance with law, and the notification was valid.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether the procedure adopted for selection of candidates for appointment is transparent and in consonance with law or is vitiated by illegality?
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).
Procedural History
Appellants filed writ petitions (W.P. Nos.104674-675/2016) challenging the Notification dated 28.10.2015. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on 24.03.2017. Appellants filed intra-court appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
