Two writ appeals challenging deletions in TET exam marks were filed against the State of Karnataka. The High Court held no adjudication was needed as certain respondents qualified in subsequent TETs, while those failing to meet the cut-off for General Merit categories outside reservations were not within the zone of consideration.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH 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. 100321 OF 2022 (EDN-EX) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 100322 OF 2022 (EDN-EX)
IN WA NO.100321 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
THE SPECIAL OFFICER, CENTRALIZED EXAMINATION CELL, BENGALURU, DIST. BENGALURU 560001, RPTD. BY PREMA H.M.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VINAYAKA
B V
Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Date: 2023.11.15 10:41:15 +0530
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R3 TO R5 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 20.04.2022 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.108569/2019 (EDN-EX).
IN WA NO.100322 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
THE SPECIAL OFFICER, CENTRALIZED EXAMINATION CELL, BENGALURU, DIST. BENGALURU 560001, RPTD BY PREMA H.M.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL 583231.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R5, R6, R7, NOTICE TO R1, R2 SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON BLE COURT TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 20.04.2022 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.109293/2019 (EDN-EX).
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These writ appeals are filed against the order dated
20.04.2022 passed in WP No.109293/2019 c/w WP
No.108569/2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has held that question No.83 to Paper II to the examination held on 3.2.2019 is eschewed, respondents therein were directed to mark the applicants without reference to question No.83. It was further directed that in the event of the petitioners in
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12997-DB WA No. 100321 of 2022 C/W WA No. 100322 of 2022
the writ proceedings are declared to be qualified on account of deletion of question No.83, they would also be permitted to apply for fresh recruitment which would be considered by the respondents in accordance with law.
2. In both these writ appeals, learned counsel for
the appellant has filed a memo showing the candidates who were qualified in TET examination for the year 2021. The said memo reads as hereunder:
| Sl. No. |
Writ Appeal Nos. |
Candidate Name | Qualified year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | WA 100321/22 | Dharmraj Anandappa Doddammani (Respondent No.1) |
2021 |
| 2. | WA 100322/22 | Nagaraj Maruti Rao Bhosle (Respondent No.1) |
2021 |
| 3. | WA 100322/22 | Bogamma Bheemaraya Halageri (Respondent No.3) |
2021 |
the marks of the candidates after eschewing question No.83,
which reads as hereunder:
| Sl. No. |
Writ Appeal |
Candidate Name |
Marks | obtained | Qualifyin | g marks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nos. | In year 2019 |
After judgment |
Minimum percentage required for category |
Percentage obtained |
||
| 1. | 100321/22 | Poornima Nagappa (Respondent No.1) |
88/149 | 88/148 | 60% for Cat-IIIA |
59.46% |
| 2. | 100322/22 | Jandipeer Budansab (Respondent No.1) |
87/149 | 87/148 | 60% for Cat-IIB |
58.78% |
| 3. | 100322/22 | Bogamma Bheemaraya Halageri (Respondent No.3) |
87/149 | 87/148 | 60% for Cat-IIA |
58.78% |
appeals may be disposed of.
of stipulation issued by the Government relating to TET examination for the year 2018, which provides minimum
qualification of 60% for General Merit candidates and 55% for the Reserved candidates. In terms of said brochure, the qualifying marks of 60% would be applicable to those candidates belonging to Category-IIIA, IIB and IIA and the above said candidates do not fall within the category of SCST and Category-1 for whom there is a lower qualifying mark. Accordingly, as they do not fall within the zone of consideration, there is no question of adjudication of order passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, both writ appeals are disposed off.
Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed off.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
JTR
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ appeals challenging the deletion of a specific examination question and marking of candidates require adjudication when some respondents qualified in subsequent examinations.
Whether respondents failing to meet the 60% cut-off marks for General Merit Category-IIIA in the contested exam are within the zone of consideration.
The Special Officer, Centralized Examination Cell
Dharmraj D/o. Anandappa Doddamani
Poornima D/o. Nagappa
The State of Karnataka
Deputy Director, Administration
The Commissioner, Department of Public Instruction
S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
