Dismissed¶71

Sri. Kantharaja. Y. M. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2025WP/14063/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Professor (Management) recruitment; KEA Notification dated 22.01.2015; non-selected candidate; no right to appointment from select list; Final Select List 02.01.2017; Additional Select List 25.05.2017; document verification notice 04.01.2022; re-notification 05.09.2020; no 2A-Rural vacancy; delay/laches in challenging selection; KSAT Application No.1551/2023 order dated 19.03.2024; T.I. Tejaswi failed to report to duty; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Karnataka High Court writ petition rejected; S.G. Pandit; K.V. Aravind.

What did the court decide?

A candidate whose name finds place in the Select List does not automatically acquire the right to seek appointment; mere inclusion in the select list does not confer a right to demand appointment. ¶57

Sri. Kantharaja. Y. M. Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose name does not appear in the Final Select List or the Additional Select List, has any right to seek appointment as Assistant Professor (Management). +3 more

¶66

Court's answer

The petitioner's name did not figure in the Final Select List or the Additional Select List; absent such inclusion, he possesses no right to seek appointment.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

A candidate whose name finds place in the Select List does not automatically acquire the right to seek appointment; mere inclusion in the select list does not confer a right to demand appointment.

¶57

Key takeaways

Though the petitioner was called for document verification under notice dated 04.01.2022 (Annexure-A18), it is not known on what basis he was called.ratio¶61
Had the petitioner been aggrieved by non-selection he should have challenged the select lists when published in 2017; even the slightest delay in challenging the selection or appointment disentitles him from any relief.ratio¶67
The vacancies which remained unfilled under Notification dated 22.01.2015 were re-notified under Notification dated 05.09.2020 (Annexure-A17); consequently there was no vacancy of Assistant Professor under the 2A-Rural category.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Divisional Bench; NC: 2025:KHC:30778-DB), WP No. 14063 of 2024 (S-KSAT), decided 07.08.2025; coram S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind JJ., oral order per S.G. Pandit J. A non-selected candidate for Assistant Professor (Management) under KEA Notification dated 22.01.2015 (category 2A-Rural; 131/300 marks), whose name appeared in neither the Final Select List (02.01.2017) nor the Additional Select List (25.05.2017), challenged the KSAT's order dated 19.03.2024 in A.No.1551/2023 and sought appointment, pleading next-meritorious status after T.I. Tejaswi failed to report to duty. Held: inclusion in a select list confers no automatic right to appointment; the petitioner, absent from both lists, has no right to seek appointment; the unexplained call for document verification (notice dated 04.01.2022) conferred no right; unfilled vacancies stood re-notified on 05.09.2020, leaving no 2A-Rural vacancy; delay since 2017 disentitles him from relief; no less-meritorious candidate was appointed. Writ petition rejected. References: Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India; Regulation 4.4.5, UGC Regulations 2010 (within the reproduced Tribunal order).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30778-DB WP No. 14063 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 14063 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. KANTHARAJA. Y. M., S/O MADHAN KUMAR Y. C., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT YEMMETHIMMANAHALLI, MEDIGESHI (H), MADHUGIRI TQ, TUMAKURU - 572 133.

¶13

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:30778-DB WP No. 14063 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶23

KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAMPIGE ROAD, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560002.

¶24

SRI JAYASHANKAR N., S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, AGE: MAJOR, RESIDING AT PADMAPURA, RATNASANDRA (POST), SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 57213.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K. SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE KSAT PASSED ON 19.03.2024 IN A.No-1551/2023 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:30778-DB WP No. 14063 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶35

Petitioner, a non-selected candidate to the post of Assistant Professor (Management), in pursuance of Notification dated 22.01.2015 is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2024 in Application No.1551/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’) rejecting his challenge to the Final Select List dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure-A28), Notification dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure-A25) inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Professors and other communications and also with a prayer to declare that non-publication of additional list is contrary to the Notification dated 22.01.2015 (Annexure-A11).

¶36

Brief facts which are relevant to the present case are that, under Notification dated 22.01.2015, respondent No.3Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA), which was entrusted with the selection process, invited applications to fill-up the posts of Assistant Professors in various subjects. The petitioner

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30778-DB WP No. 14063 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

claims that he applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Management) claiming reservation under category 2A-Rural. The selection was on the basis of marks obtained in the competitive examination. In the competitive examination, the petitioner obtained 131 out of 300 marks. The Final Select List of selected candidates was published on 02.01.2017 and thereafter Additional Select List of Assistant Professors was published on 25.05.2017. The name of the applicant/petitioner was not found either in the Final Select List or the Additional Select List of Assistant Professors.

¶40

In the meanwhile, some of the candidates approached the Tribunal in Application No.763/2015 and connected applications questioning the eligibility criteria prescribed under Notification dated 22.01.2015 inviting applications. The Tribunal by its order dated 12.06.2018, passed the following order;

¶41

" 87. The applications are disposed of in terms of the following:

¶42

1) Master's degree holders in Business Administration / Management who have applied for the posts of Assistant Professors in Business Administration / Management to teach under graduates in BBA/BBM/B.Com., should necessarily possess Bachelor's degree in one of these three subjects and that such prescription imposed by the State Government is valid in law.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30778-DB WP No. 14063 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

(2) The candidates who have marks less than I Class except the candidates belonging to Schedule Caste / Schedule Tribe / Differently abled (Physically and visually differently abled) Categories would not be entitled to be selected since the Special Rules and recruitment Notifications are read down in tune with Regulation 4.4.5 of UGC regulations 2010. Of course, 5% relaxation is available to the candidates belonging to SC/ST & differently abled (Physically and visually differently abled) category.

¶46

(3) The Respondents to proceed with the selection and appointment of candidates for the unfilled posts in terms of the above at the earliest."

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, a revised select list ought to have been published by respondent No.3. Learned counsel would submit that, in pursuance of the letter of the Government, the KEA under letter dated 16.11.2019 (Annexure-A15) forwarded names of the candidates who would be entitled for appointment upon deletion of the names of certain selected candidates who had submitted fabricated documents or who were otherwise ineligible for selection. Further, learned counsel would submit that by notice dated 04.01.2022 (Annexure-A18), the petitioner was called for document verification and accordingly, the petitioner is said to

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30778-DB WP No. 14063 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

have attended verification of documents on 14.01.2022. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, thereafter the respondents have failed to take further action to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor (Management) which constrained the petitioner to approach the Tribunal.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one of the similarly situated candidates approached the Tribunal in Application No.1701/2024 and the Tribunal by its order dated 08.05.2025 directed the respondent-authorities to consider her case for appointment. Therefore, learned counsel would also pray for similar direction. Further, learned counsel would submit that petitioner is the next meritorious candidate to be considered for appointment as Assistant Professor (Management) in place of one T.I. Tejaswi, who failed to report to duty. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the application and to direct the respondents to consider his case for appointment.

¶52

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioner was not selected and that his name does not appear either in the Final Select List or in the

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:30778-DB WP No. 14063 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Additional Select List of Assistant Professors (Management). Therefore, they submit that the petitioner has no right to seek appointment. Mere calling the petitioner for document verification would not confer any right on the petitioner to seek appointment. Further, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has not challenged his non-selection in the Final Select List or in the Additional Select List within time and that the petitioner has approached the Tribunal only in the year 2023. Therefore, they submit that in the matter of appointment, even the shortest delay would prejudice the case of selected candidates. Thus, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶56

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner for more than one reason, which are as follows;

¶57

(i) A candidate whose name finds place in the Select List would not automatically acquire the right to seek appointment. Mere inclusion of a candidate’s name in the

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30778-DB WP No. 14063 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

select list would not confer right on the said candidate to demand for appointment.

¶61

(ii) In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner’s name did not find place either in the Final Select List or in the Additional Select List. It is true that the petitioner was called for document verification under notice dated 04.01.2022 (Annexure-A18). It is not known on what basis the petitioner was called for document verification.

¶62

(iii) Annexure-A24, a letter dated 10.01.2023 from the Department of Collegiate Education to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Bengaluru, indicates that the vacancies which remained unfilled in pursuance of the Notification dated 22.01.2015 were re-notified under Notification dated 05.09.2020 (Annexure-A17). Therefore, it is stated that there was no vacancy of Assistant Professor under 2A-Rural category.

¶63

(iv) Learned counsel Sri Raghavendra G. Gayathri for the petitioner points out that, the list of candidates for vacant posts of Assistant Professors in different subjects from

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:30778-DB WP No. 14063 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Additional Select List, appended to letter dated 16.11.2019 (Annexure-A15) addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.1 contains the name of the petitioner and that as the candidate T.I. Tajeswi selected under category 2A-Rural failed to report to duty, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered. There is no substance in the said contention. The Final Select List and the Additional Select List which are on record at page No.141 (Annexure-A14) and at page No.219 (Annexure-R1) respectively would not include the name of the petitioner. In the absence of petitioner’s name in the Final Select List or in the Additional Select List, the petitioner would not possess any right to seek appointment.

¶67

(v) If the petitioner was aggrieved by non-selection or non-inclusion of his name in the Final Select List or Additional Select List, he would have challenged the same when it was published in the year 2017. He would not have waited till the communication dated 05.09.2020 or subsequent communication. Even the slightest delay in the matter of challenging the selection or appointment would disentitle the petitioner from any relief.

¶68

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:30778-DB WP No. 14063 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

(vi) Respondent No.4, the candidate who is selected in pursuance of subsequent Notification dated 30.09.2021, is made party unnecessarily. The petitioner has not made any of the candidates who are selected under category 2A-Rural in pursuance of Notification dated 22.01.2015. Moreover, no candidate less meritorious than the petitioner has been appointed, and no candidate has been appointed, who has scored less than the petitioner.

¶71

We find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is rejected .

¶72

In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of as not surviving.

¶73

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶74

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶75

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 19.03.2024 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No.1551/2023, rejecting the petitioner's challenge to the Final Select List dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure-A28), the Notification dated 30.09.2021 and allied communications.¶35
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru · 19.03.2024
Prior proceeding
Under Notification dated 22.01.2015, respondent No.3 Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA), entrusted with the selection process, invited applications to fill up Assistant Professor posts in various subjects.¶36
Prior proceeding
Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Management) claiming reservation under category 2A-Rural.¶39
Prior proceeding
Selection was based on competitive-examination marks; the petitioner obtained 131 out of 300 marks.¶39
Prior proceeding
Final Select List of selected candidates published on 02.01.2017; Additional Select List of Assistant Professors published on 25.05.2017.¶39
Prior proceeding
The petitioner's name was not found either in the Final Select List or in the Additional Select List of Assistant Professors.¶39
Prior proceeding
Some candidates approached the Tribunal in Application No.763/2015 and connected applications questioning the eligibility criteria prescribed under Notification dated 22.01.2015; the Tribunal disposed of these by order dated 12.06.2018 (Bachelor's-degree prescription upheld; sub-First-Class candidates barred except SC/ST/differently-abled with 5% relaxation, reading down per UGC Regulation 4.4.5).¶40
Prior proceeding
By its order dated 12.06.2018 the Tribunal directed the respondents to proceed with selection and appointment of candidates for the unfilled posts at the earliest.¶46
Prior proceeding
In pursuance of a Government letter, KEA under letter dated 16.11.2019 (Annexure-A15) forwarded names of candidates entitled for appointment upon deletion of certain selected candidates who had submitted fabricated documents or were otherwise ineligible.¶47
Prior proceeding
By notice dated 04.01.2022 (Annexure-A18) the petitioner was called for document verification.¶47
Prior proceeding
The petitioner attended verification of documents on 14.01.2022.¶50
Prior proceeding
Vacancies unfilled under Notification dated 22.01.2015 were re-notified under Notification dated 05.09.2020 (Annexure-A17); letter dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure-A24) from the Department of Collegiate Education indicated there was no vacancy of Assistant Professor under 2A-Rural category.¶62
Prior proceeding
A similarly situated candidate approached the Tribunal in Application No.1701/2024; by order dated 08.05.2025 the Tribunal directed the respondent-authorities to consider her case for appointment.¶51
Prior proceeding
Selected candidate T.I. Tejaswi (category 2A-Rural) failed to report to duty; counsel contended the petitioner was the next meritorious candidate to be considered for appointment in his place (spelt 'T.I. Tajeswi' at ¶66).¶51

Sri. Kantharaja. Y. M. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kantharaja. Y. M. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Oasis Centre Llc

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs Shri Jagadish N Hinduja

Sri Y M Thippesh Vs the Deputy Director

Smt. Suma Vs Deputy Director

Sri. C. R. Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a v Srinivasulu Naidu Vs the State of Karnataka