Three three writ appeals were rejected where the High Court held that excluding candidature after selection could not ground a challenge to recruitment rules. The Court found no legal requirement to weigh 50% SSLC marks and dismissed the Writ Appeals.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
100089 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 100218 OF 2023 (S-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 100542 OF 2022 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO. 100089 OF 2023 (S-RES)
IN WA NO. 100218/2023
BETWEEN:
VINAYAKA B V
Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V
Date: 2023.11.28 12:23:36 +0530
100089 of 2023
… APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C.R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 R5, SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO.103027/2022 (S/RES), DATED 29.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL, IN SO FOR AS APPELLANTS ARE CONCERN IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WA NO. 100542/2022
BETWEEN:
… APPELLANTS
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4, R5, SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, PLEASE SET ASIDE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO.104728/2021 (S-RES), DATED 29.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL, IN SO FOR AS APPELLANTS ARE CONCERN IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WA NO. 100089/2023
BETWEEN:
R/O.MIG 1, 138, SIDDALING NAGAR, GADAG-582103.
(BY SRI. C.R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UDYOGA SOUDA, BENGALURU-560001, BY ITS SECRETARY.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 AND R5, SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, MAY PLEASE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO. 105152/2021(S/RES) DATED 29.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Writ Appeal No.100089/2023 has been filed by Sri.Mahesh and 05 others challenging the order passed in W.P.No.105152/2021 and connected matters disposed of on 29.10.2022. Writ Appeal No.100218/2023 has been filed by Sri.Ramesh and 20 others challenging the order passed in W.P.No.103027/2022 and connected matters. Writ Appeal No.100542/2023 has been filed by Sri.Sanjeevakumar and 11 others challenging the order passed in W.P.No.104728/2021.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023
further relief by way of issuance of writ of mandamus to adopt selection method by taking into consideration 50 marks obtained in SSLC by while making appointments to the post of Drawing Teacher. The learned Single Judge, by a detailed consideration, has rejected the petition.
notification came to be passed on 03.11.2016 seeking to
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023
recruit and fill up the post of Drawing Teachers. In light of the earlier notification of 27.04.2011 having been set aside, those who had applied at the first instance were exempted from paying application fee and there was relaxation insofar as age limit. Accordingly, the petitioners have stated to have applied pursuant to the notification dated 03.11.2016. It is an admitted fact that selection was on the basis of merit with no role assigned to the interview and accordingly, in the provisional selection list of 25.11.2021 petitioners having been excluded they are aggrieved by such selection. The said provisional selection list came to be affirmed by issuance of a final list.
that though the Recruitment Rules were amended in 2014, the 2011 Recruitment Rules must be read in conjunction with the Government Order of 21.03.2006 as well as the notification dated 21.05.1998 and if all such documents are read together, the select list ought to have been prepared by giving due weightage to the extent of 50% of marks obtained in SSLC.
SCC 493.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023
terms of the existing Cadre and Recruitment Rules of 2011 as well as the changes made in the notification of 17.06.2014 which was reflected in the notification of 03.11.2016. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge that the amended Regulations of 17.06.2014 was upheld by this Court in W.P.No.21856/2017 and connected matters and accordingly, the learned Single Judge did not find any legal infirmity in the notification of 03.11.2016 following the Cadre and Recruitment Rules relating to Recruitment of 17.06.2014. The Single Judge has also noticed the Government Order dated 16.10.2019 which clarifies that the marks obtained in the public examination should alone be considered for purpose of the appointment process and records a finding that the G.O. does not alter or modify the qualification prescribed, while holding so, the writ petitions came to be rejected.
and notification is issued pursuant to the recruitment Rules the candidates cannot subsequently after the selection process is over, turn around and challenge the very validity of the Rules pursuant to which notification for recruitment has been issued. The said legal position has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok kumar Sharma & Others v/s State of Bihar and Others1 .
1 (2017) 4 SCC 357
Recruitment Notification pursuant to which they themselves have participated requires affirmation.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023
made in paragraphs no.14 to 16 as regards such aspect cannot be interfered with. The contention of counsel for the petitioners regarding S.S.L.C. marks is based on an interpretation on the basis of the earlier regulation which according to them continues in force and are not amended by the subsequent amendments. However the said finding of the learned Single Judge being one that is plausible it will not be appropriate to set aside such conclusion merely because in appeal proceedings the Court may decide to come to a different conclusion on the same set of facts.
marks to be taken note of for Diploma and such clarification is in consonance with the broader qualification regarding having cleared the Diploma examination.
Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
BSR & BVV / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
Sd/JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether candidates who challenged the recruitment notification can subsequently question its validity after being excluded from the selection list.
Whether the recruitment regulations for Drawing Teachers require consideration of 50% marks obtained in the SSLC examination.
Whether the Government Order dated 16.10.2019 modified the qualification rules regarding marks consideration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
H.C. Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.Distinguished¶113
H.C.Pradeep Kumar Rai and others vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others reported in 2015 (11) SCC 493 · Who else cites this
Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others v. State of Bihar & OthersApplied¶121
Ashok kumar Sharma & Others v/s State of Bihar and Others (2017) 4 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramesh S/o Siddappa Hugarakar & Ors.
State of Karnataka
S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Vijaykumar A.Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
