Nagaraj S/O Ramchandra Suryavanshi Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Nagaraj S/O Ramchandra Suryavanshi Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Time-bound direction (12 weeks) to respondent No.2, the Executive Director, Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.12.2014; no finding on the merits of the petitioner's claim.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 should be directed to consider and accept the petitioner's representations dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure-F) seeking weightage-based consideration of his candidature following non-selection.

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation submitted in the year 2014, within an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

This Court has not considered the merit or the claim of the petitioner; no opinion is expressed on the entitlement to weightage.

Key takeaways

The direction applies where the representation has not already been considered; if it has already been considered, the petitioner remains free to pursue whatever remedy is available in law.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (S-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The petitioner, who worked in the Muraji Desai Residential School from 2008 to 2012, applied pursuant to a notification for teaching and non-teaching posts in the institution but was not selected. He thereafter submitted representations dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure-F) to respondent No.2, the Executive Director, Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society, seeking consideration of his candidature on the ground of weightage under a State circular; the representation remained unconsidered. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 undertook that, given reasonable time, the representation would be considered on its merits. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition directing respondent No.2 to consider the 2014 representation within an outer limit of 12 weeks from receipt of the order, expressly clarifying that the Court had not examined the merit or claim of the petitioner, and reserving the petitioner's liberty to pursue available remedies if the representation had already been considered.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17097 WP No. 110093 of 2017

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 110093 OF 2017 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

NAGARAJ S/O. RAMCHANDRA SURYAVANSHI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: A/P: SHINDIKURBET, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NAVEEN R. MELINAMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, AN ORGANIZATION OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, NO.179, 3RD FLOOR, I MAIN ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 001.

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2

…RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER AND ACCEPT THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 15.12.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17097 WP No. 110093 of 2017

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

following prayer:

I. Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to consider and accept the representations dated 15.12.2014 submitted by the petitioner to the Respondent No.2 at vide Annexure-F.

II. Grant such other relief’s as are deemed fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case including the cost of this writ petition in interest of justice and equity.

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Naveen R. Melinamani, appearing for petitioner, learned HCGP-Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.Sunil S. Desai, appearing for respondent No.2.

The petitioner is said to have worked in the Muraji Desai Residential School during the period of 2008 to 2012. A notification comes to be issued calling for applications from eligible candidates to fill up the posts of teaching and non-teaching staff in the said institution. The petitioner is said to have applied pursuant to the said notification and has not been selected. On the grievance of non-selection, the petitioner is said to have submitted a representation to the respondent seeking the consideration of his candidature on the score that he is

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17097 WP No. 110093 of 2017

HC-KAR

entitled to weightage in terms of a circular issued by the State. The representation has not yet merited consideration.

The learned counsel Sri.Sunil Desai submits that if reasonable time is granted, the representation would be considered on its merit and an answer in accordance with law would be given.

In the light of the aforesaid submission, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation submitted in the year 2014, with an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

It is made clear that this court has not considered the merit or the claim of the petitioner.

The representation shall be considered in the event it

is not already considered and if considered the petitioner is at liberty to avail of such remedy as available in law.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

RHR/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6