Candidates allege irregularities in the recruitment of 97 posts during 2016–17 and seek an investigation following Venugopal's reported legal victory
Allegations of irregularities in the 2016–17 TUMUL recruitment process have resurfaced in Tumakuru. Following Venugopal's reported court victory in an Assistant System Manager appointment dispute, 37 other candidates are preparing to pursue legal action over alleged manipulation of examination records and appointments.
Tumakuru: Allegations of irregularities in the recruitment of 97 posts at the Tumakuru Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies Union Limited (TUMUL) during 2016–17 have resurfaced, with 37 candidates reportedly preparing to approach the court seeking an investigation into the selection process.
The development follows a reported legal victory by Venugopal, who challenged his non-selection for the post of Assistant System Manager. Candidates who claim they were denied appointments despite meeting the eligibility requirements are now seeking similar legal remedies.
The recruitment process involved several positions, including First Division Assistant (FDA), System Manager and General Manager.
TUMUL Recruitment Irregularities Alleged in 97 Appointments
Candidates have alleged that irregularities occurred during the recruitment process for 97 posts conducted in 2016–17.
They claim that certain appointments were secured through payments ranging from ₹25 lakh to ₹50 lakh, while qualified applicants were denied opportunities.
The available information has not established these allegations, and no official findings confirming payments for appointments have been provided.
The candidates are demanding an investigation into the recruitment process and the circumstances surrounding the disputed selections.
Venugopal's Court Battle Raises Questions Over TUMUL Selection
Venugopal, who had applied for the Assistant System Manager position, reportedly challenged his non-selection before the Karnataka High Court.
According to the candidates' account, Venugopal secured 102 marks in the written examination, while Madhusudhan, who reportedly scored 77 marks, was appointed to the position.
Venugopal challenged the appointment and pursued legal proceedings for approximately nine years.
The account states that the High Court ruled in his favour and that the Supreme Court subsequently upheld the outcome. Following the proceedings, Madhusudhan reportedly lost the position, while Venugopal was appointed.
However, the supplied information did not include the relevant court orders or the full selection criteria.
37 Candidates Seek Investigation Into TUMUL Recruitment Process
Following Venugopal's reported legal victory, 37 other candidates are preparing to pursue legal action over the recruitment process.
The candidates have alleged that:
- Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) answer sheets were manipulated during the selection process.
- Answers were allegedly communicated to certain candidates during examinations.
- Appointments were reportedly offered in exchange for money.
- Eligible candidates were denied positions despite meeting recruitment requirements.
The candidates have demanded an investigation into the entire 2016–17 recruitment process to determine whether irregularities affected the final selection list.
TUMUL Recruitment Dispute Returns to Focus After Nine Years
The latest developments have brought the recruitment controversy back into discussion nearly nine years after the appointments were made. The candidates believe that Venugopal's reported court victory provides grounds for examining other disputed selections.
However, the outcome of one candidate's case does not automatically establish wrongdoing in other appointments. It remains unclear whether the 37 candidates have formally filed fresh petitions or whether the authorities have initiated a new investigation.
A response from TUMUL regarding the latest allegations was not available in the information provided.
