KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Vijayashankar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. V. Shastry, learned counsel for the respondent 4. Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties for final disposal. ( 2 ) THE matter revolves around the appointment of the 2nd petitioner as general manager of 1st petitioner-bank. ( 3 ) THE facts, very briefly, are the 1st petitioner is a co-operative bank having various branches. Its area of operation is within uttara kannada district. The 1st respondent was pleased to give approval for appointment to the post of manager and other employees. Permission was also granted under Rule 17 (1) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Rules to have a post of general manager in the pay scale of Rs. 2,600-4,575 as per annexure-b. The 1st petitioner-bank amended its bye-laws to have a post of general manager as per bye-law No. 42. Bye-law No. 38 (t) empowers the bank to make subsidiary rules relating to the conditions of service of its employees. The amended bye-laws have been duly approved by the registrar of co-operative societies. ( 4 ) THE bank employees service rules indicated that as per Rule 5 the general manager can be appointed either by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation. Having regard to this provision the bank passed a resolution dated 8-4-1999 and resolved to fill up the post of general manager by direct recruitment. The qualification required was m. com. Ii class with c. a. i. i. b. with banking experience (Annexure-D ). pursuant to this resolution, an advertisement was issued in all the leading local newspapers calling for applications to fill up the post of general manager. Since sufficient number of qualified candidates were not available the bank passed one more resolution dated 9-9-1999 modifying the earlier resolution prescribing m. b. a. or m. com. Ii class or b. com. With c. a. i. i. b. with banking experience. The true copy of the second resolution dated 9-9-1999 is before me as Annexure-F. The modified qualifications were also advertised in the newspaper giving wide publicity as per Annexure-G. ( 5 ) THE 1st petitioner-bank received 23 applications including the application of one rajeev govind shanbhag (second petitioner ). The bank wanted the most qualified person to hold the office of the general manager. The bank wanted the most qualified person to hold the office of the general manager. the list of candidates who applied to the post of general manager and who appeared for the written examination is placed before the court as Annexure-J. ( 6 ) THE petitioner-bank permitted the 4th respondent to appear for the written examination. The letter is marked as Annexure-K. However, the 4th respondent did not appear for the written examination. ( 7 ) OUT of the candidates who appeared for the written examination, five candidates were listed for oral test. It is relevant to state that the examination was conducted by the bank through institute of banking personnel selection, Bombay which is recognised by the reserve bank of india. Ultimately after completing all the procedure the 2nd petitioner was selected as general manager. A resolution was passed on 6-2-2000 to this effect (Annexure-M ). The 2nd petitioner was issued with an appointment order on 7-2-2000 (Annexure-N ). It is stated that he reported for duty on 7-2-2000. He resigned his post as senior clerk and joined duty as general manager on 7-2-2000 itself. The joining report dated 7-2-2000 is produced at annexure-q. ( 8 ) THE 4th respondent who did not appear for the written examination for the post of general manager raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' ). The dispute was raised before the respondent 2. The 2nd respondent passed the following order at annexure-w. "in the court of the joint registrar, co-operative societies, belgaum division, belgaum ( 21 ) THE 1st respondent-appellate tribunal equally ought not to have dealt with the matter on merits. It ought to have remitted the matter to the joint registrar to enable the petitioners to file an application for vacating the stay. The 2nd respondent has committed grave error in passing the ex parte impugned order without hearing the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 22 ) IN the result, the impugned orders annexure-w and annexure-y are set aside. The deputy registrar-3rd respondent is directed to dispose of the application for interim orders after hearing the petitioners and the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible. ( 22 ) IN the result, the impugned orders annexure-w and annexure-y are set aside. The deputy registrar-3rd respondent is directed to dispose of the application for interim orders after hearing the petitioners and the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible. The deputy registrar is also directed to dispose of the dispute as expeditiously as possible strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made by this court. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. no costs. --- *** --- .