Partly allowed

Dr Gopala a v. Karnataka State Eligibility Test (Kset) Center

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2025WP/20935/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Assistant Professor declared not eligible in Law under KSET-2021 challenged the cut-off notification, arguing the UGC formula deprived Scheduled Tribes candidates of eligibility in many subjects despite statutory reservation. The court held reservation must be applied subject-wise per roster, declared the petitioner successful, and directed respondents to revise the criteria.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be declared successful and issued SET certificate within four weeks; respondents Nos.1 and 2 to revise KSET results criteria to apply Act of 1990 reservation subject-wise and category-wi

Dr Gopala a Vs Karnataka State Eligibility Test… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.20935 OF 2021 (EDN/RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. GOPALA A. S/O. LATE SHRI ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT. NO.3, SNEHA NIVAS, 9^TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, FURTHER EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560086.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

KARNATAKA STATE ELIGIBILITY TEST (KSET) CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE, MOULYA BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE, MANASAGANGOTHRI, MYSURU-570 006. (REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR)

¶14

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, A BODY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ACT, 1956, BAHADUR SHA ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002. (REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN)

¶15

¶16

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGH EDUCATION, SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 2^ND GATE, 6^TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING. (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY)

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. ARIHANT R.SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.P.RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

¶21

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION TITLED “CUT OFF MARKS AND PERCENTAGES OF SUBJECTS OF KSET-2021 EXAMINATION HELD ON 25^TH JULY 2021” DATED 02.11.2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER’S SUBJECT AT SUBJECT CODE 18 IS CONCERNED ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶25

CAV ORDER

¶26

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

¶27

The petitioner who is presently working as Assistant Professor in the Government Law College, Chamarajnagar, is aggrieved of his non-accreditation in the Karnataka State Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as ‘KSET’ for short). The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

¶28

A. Call for the records.

¶29

B. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction to quash the impugned Notification titled “Cut off marks and Percentages of subjects of KSET-2021 Examination held on 25^th July, 2021” dated 02^nd November, 2021 produced at Annexure-A in so far as it relates to the Petitioner’s subject at Subject Code 18 is concerned issued by the Respondent;

¶30

C. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction to set aside Impugned Notification regarding ‘Conditions for Eligible Candidates’ dated 2^nd November 2021, produced at Annexure-B issued by the Respondent;

¶31

D. Declare the Petitioner as eligible by taking into consideration of the Aggregate score of the petitioner in Law Subject in KSET-2021 Examination as per UGC formula and Karnataka

¶32

¶33

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶34

State Reservation policy as prescribed in KSET2021 Notification dated 06^th February 2021;

¶35

E. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order, or direction to quash Annexure-D of the Notification dated 6^th February, 2021 to the extent it prescribes the impugned formula for determining eligibility for the posts under KSET2021.

¶36

F. To pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶37

Respondent No.1-KSET, a Nodal Agency, has

¶38

been established by the State Government in coordination with the Government of India to accredit teachers, certify them as eligible for being appointed to the post of Lecturers and Assistant Professors. Having regard to the Education Policy, 1986, the Government of India envisaged qualifying tests to be conducted and to certify only those candidates who, besides fulfilling the minimum academic qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer, have qualified in a comprehensive test to be specifically conducted for the purpose, will be certified as eligible for

¶39

¶40

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶41

appointment as Lecturer. Respondent No.1-KSET, in consultation with respondent No.2-University Grants Commission conducts eligibility tests in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner responded to an invitation/notification issued by respondent No.1-KSET on 06.02.2021 and filed an application to take up the test, for the post of Assistant Professor, in the subject-Law. The results of the examination were declared in the official website of respondent No.1 on 02.11.2021 and the petitioner was declared as “not eligible”, and consequently, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner raising a challenge to the declaration of results in the impugned notification at Annexure-A dated 02.11.2021, the subsequent amendment as permitted, the petitioner has also raised challenge to the “conditions for eligible candidates” in the impugned notification dated 06.02.2021 where a formula is prescribed for determining eligibility.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that procedural criteria for declaration of KSET results, as found in the impugned notification dated 06.02.2021 at

¶43

¶44

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶45

Annexure-D prescribes 6% of the candidates who appear in both the papers, namely, Paper-I and Paper-II of KSET, to be accredited. However, although procedure prescribed subject-wise and category-wise distribution, nevertheless, the formula prescribed in the impugned notification, does not adhere to such selection, subject-wise. It is submitted that the State Government has enacted the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation and Appointment etc.) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1990’ for short) to provide for reservation in the appointments or the posts in the State Civil Services etc. and in the educational institutions established and maintained by the State Government. The State Government, through Statute has prescribed reservations to the Scheduled Castes at 15% and Scheduled Tribes at 3% respectively. It is submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1990, reservation to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes should be provided in every cadre, department-wise.

¶46

7 - WP No.20935 of 2021

¶47

4. Learned counsel submits that having regard to

¶48

the mandate for reservation as found in Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, the State Government has made provision for reservation in appointments and posts to give adequate representation in the services under the State. It is submitted that the procedural criteria prescribed in the impugned notification seeks to give subject-wise representation to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, nevertheless, in the final analysis, the eligibility is declared, giving a go by to the subject-wise requirement. In order to drive home the point, it is pointed out from Annexure-A-notification dated 02.11.2021 that in the subject-Law, under the ST-Category, no cut off percentage is prescribed. It is pointed out that in the subject-Law, under GM-Category, the cut off mark is prescribed as 57.33% and for SC-Category, the cut off mark is prescribed as 48.67%. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner scored more than 35% in the two papers combined. In fact, the petitioner secured 35 out of 100

¶49

¶50

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶51

marks in Paper-I and 84 out of 200 in Paper-II, and therefore, the percentage secured by the petitioner is 39.33%. Learned counsel submits that all efforts made by the petitioner to secure information from respondent No.1 as to the number of candidates who applied for the test in Law subject and number of candidates who are declared eligible, has gone in vain, no information is made available to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that having regard to the provisions of the Act of 1990, in every subject, reservation of 3% is required to be given to ST Category, but respondent No.1 has failed to provide for reservation in each subject, and therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved.

¶52

Learned counsel Sri.T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay appearing for respondent No.1-KSET submitted that the final results have been declared in terms of the impugned notification at Annexure-D and the formula prescribed in the notification, under the heading “Procedure and Criteria for Declaration of KSET Results”. All the three steps shown in the procedure have been

¶53

¶54

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶55

followed. In the first step, the total number of slots which shall be equal to 6% of the candidates who appeared in both the papers is arrived at. In the second step, a merit list is prepared having regard to the total slots arrived step-wise and category-wise, using aggregate marks of all the two papers secured by the candidates. In terms of the directives issued by the UGC, third step is followed as per the formula given by the UGC notification. It is submitted that no fault can be found in the action of respondent No.1-KSET.

¶56

Learned counsel Sri.H.R.Showri appearing for respondent No.2-UGC submitted that the formula prescribed by the UGC cannot be faulted. Attention of this court is drawn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the UGC, having regard to the additional prayer made by the petitioner seeking the formula prescribed by the UGC as unconstitutional. It is submitted that the UGC which is constituted under the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 is entrusted with the duty to take such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and

¶57

10 - WP No.20935 of 2021

¶58

coordination of university education and for the

¶59

determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities. For this purpose, UGC has been vested with the power to recommend to any university, the measures necessary for the improvement of university education and advise the universities upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementation of such recommendations. It is pointed out that in the Education Policy, 1986, the Union Government has envisaged that only those candidates who, besides fulfilling the minimum academic qualifications prescribed for the post of lecturer, have qualified in a comprehensive test to be specifically conducted for the purpose, will be eligible for appointment as lecturers. The UGC held wide ranging discussions regarding this issue of conducting qualifying test for appointment as lecturers and Assistant Professors amongst experts, including group of academics and State Education Secretaries etc. The UGC conducted the first test for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and eligibility for lectureship on 24.12.1989, in the subjects

¶60

11 -

¶61

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶62

falling under Humanities including languages, social sciences and a few science subjects, and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) conducted the joint CSIR-UGC Test for JRF and eligibility for lectureship on 31.12.1989 for disciplines falling under the basic sciences. Since then, UGC-NET and the joint CSIR-UGC Test have been conducted on a regular basis, generally twice every year.

¶63

It is submitted that State Governments and Union Territories were conferred with authority to conduct their own test on fulfilling certain yardsticks. It was decided that the State Governments and Union Territories decided to conduct a test equivalent to UGC-NET and joint CSIR-UGC Tests, these tests shall require accreditation from UGC. In response to the said proposal, some of the States opted to conduct their own tests, namely, State Eligibility Test (SET) for lectureship only. The candidates who have cleared the State Eligibility Test accredited by UGC for eligibility for Assistant Professorship held prior to 01.06.2002, are exempted from appearing in NET. For

¶64

12 -

¶65

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶66

SET’s held after 01.06.2002, the qualified candidates are eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor only in the universities/colleges situated in the State from where they have cleared their SET.

¶67

It is stated in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit of the UGC that though 35% is the minimum requirement for being considered for preparation of the results of the SET, nevertheless, candidates who have obtained marks above the cut off qualifying marks shall only be issued the eligibility certificate. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-UGC submitted that respondent No.1 has clearly followed the methodology prescribed by the UGC for preparing the results of SET, and therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition.

¶68

Having heard the learned counsel Sri.Shridhar Prabhu for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri.T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay for respondent No.1, learned counsel Sri.H.R.Showri for respondent No.2, learned AGA Smt.B.P.Radha for respondent No.3, and on perusing the

¶69

13 - WP No.20935 of 2021

¶70

petition papers, this court finds that the crux of the issue is,

¶71

“Whether the methodology and the formula

¶72

prescribed in the impugned notification meets the requirement of the constitutional mandate in giving adequate representation to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC category?”

¶73

It is the contention of the petitioner that if the formula prescribed by the UGC is followed, as done in the present case, no person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes category will receive certificate of clearing SET. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the final analysis, the percentage of reservation prescribed in the Act of 1990 may be met, but in many subjects, candidates though having minimum qualification, will be deprived of the eligibility certificate, as found in the case subject “Law”. It can be seen from Annexure-A, the impugned notification, in many subjects, such as, Visual Arts, Music, Performance

¶74

14 -

¶75

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶76

Arts, Linguistics, Philosophy, Anthropology, Archaeology, Home Science, Environmental Science, Public Administration, Urdu, Folk Literature, Sanskrit, Law, Criminology etc., the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes category have not received eligibility certificate.

¶77

The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of DR.VISHWAJEET SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in 2009 SCC ONLINE ALL 420 , while considering the grievance of the writ petitioners that entire cadre cannot be taken as a unit for computing the reservation, also considered the issue “what is a unit for applying Rules of Reservation according the Act of 1994 and the roster framed thereunder”. The provisions of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, which is similar to the Act of 1990 of Karnataka fell for consideration. Noticing the similar provisions as contained in the Act of 1994 therein, the Division Bench held as under:

¶78

15 - WP No.20935 of 2021

¶79

“Thus, the reservation contemplated in admission of the students relates to various courses of study. Each course of study has to be treated separate unit for applying the percentage of reservation. There is no indication of clubbing various course of studies for applying the reservation in admission. Although the manner of applying reservation in admission of the students has no direct bearing with regard to method of applying reservation and roster on various posts of lecturers in a college but at least said statutory provision gives an indication that different course of studies have been accepted as a unit for applicability of reservation in admission.”

¶80

It was noticed that earlier, another Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of DR.DURGA

¶81

PRASAD YADAV VS STATE OF U.P. in W.P.NO.53197/2006

¶82

had held that, the lecturer in different subjects required to possess different qualifications as provided by the Statute of the University and the posts are not interchangeable. Different subjects in a college are in different disciplines and post in a college is created subject-wise. Thus, it was held that neither all the posts of one subject in different colleges can be clubbed together for applying the rules of reservation nor all the post of lecturers in one college can

¶83

16 -

¶84

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶85

be grouped together for applying the reservation. It was therefore, held that reservation according to 1994 Act and roster thereunder, is to be applied college-wise and subject-wise.

¶86

The decision of the Allahabad High Court in DR.VISHWAJEET SINGH (SUPRA) was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SANJEEV KUMAR AND OTHERS VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2019) 12 SCC 385 . In the meanwhile, a reference was made by another Division Bench which was unable to agree with the view taken in Dr.Vishwajeet Singh to a Larger Bench of more than Three Judges. Having regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SANJEEV KUMAR (SUPRA) affirming the decision in Dr.Vishwajeet Singh , the Five Judges Bench found itself to be bound by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SANJEEV KUMAR (SUPRA) and accordingly, held that there was no occasion to rule on the reference. The said decision of the Five Judges Bench again came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BABLOO

¶87

17 - WP No.20935 of 2021

¶88

SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND

¶89

OTHERS reported in (2019) 12 SCC 403 , and the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the decision of the Five Judges Bench, in view of the affirmation of the judgment of Dr.Vishwajeet Singh .

¶90

Further, on facts, it has to be noticed that in the subject-Law, totally 26 slots were available when the impugned notification was issued. In the final analysis, in terms of the final results declared by respondent No.1, 18 slots out of 26 are accorded to General category, 3 to Scheduled Castes category, 2 to II-A category, and 1 each to II-B, III-A and III-B categories. While applying the formula recommended by the UGC, in the final results, the candidates under Scheduled Tribes category have not received representation in many subjects such as, Visual Arts, Music, Performance Arts, Linguistics, Philosophy, Anthropology, Archaeology, Home Science, Environmental Science, Public Administration, Urdu, Folk Literature, Sanskrit, Law, Criminology etc.

¶91

18 - WP No.20935 of 2021

¶92

The argument of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that

¶93

overall results complies the requirement of reservation. This argument cannot be accepted. The reservation of roster as per the Act of 1990 has to be applied subject-wise. It is nobody’s case that there are single slots available in the subject-Law or many such other subjects, thereby preventing reservation. On the other hand, as noticed earlier, there were sufficient slots available in every subject, and therefore, the rule of reservation along with roster should have been applied. Although it is true that this is not the case of appointment to any posts, nevertheless, it is the process of certifying a candidate as eligible to apply to the posts of Lecturer/Assistant Professorship. Therefore, constitutional mandate adopted in the Act of 1990 providing reservation is necessarily to be applied in the present context also. The formula prescribed by the UGC does not take care of the statutory requirements of reservation enabled by the State of Karnataka.

¶94

19 - WP No.20935 of 2021

¶95

In the considered opinion of this court, the first

¶96

two steps prescribed in the ‘Procedure and Criteria for Declaration of KSET Results’, in the impugned notification do follow the requirement of identification of slots and for providing for reservation. However, the third step gives a go by to the requirement of law in the matter of reservation, as prescribed in the Act of 1990. The third step should therefore be replaced by following the roster point prescribed by the State of Karnataka in its subsequent notifications. Following the roster, would be a simple solution for providing reservation, in the matter of certifying candidates, subject-wise.

¶97

However, it is to be noticed that the final results in terms of the notification at Annexure-A was issued on 02.11.2021 and only one candidate is before this court in this writ petition. No useful purpose would be served in setting aside the impugned notification at Annexure-A. At the same time, if the relief is given to the petitioner, it would not cause any prejudice to the respondents or any

¶98

20 -

¶99

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶100

of the candidates. Consequently, this court proceeds to pass the following:

¶101

ORDER

¶102

i) The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶103

ii) Respondent No.1-KSET is hereby directed to declare the petitioner as successful and issue a certificate of SET to the petitioner.

¶104

iii) The certificate shall be issued to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶105

iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to revisit the “Procedure and Criteria for Declaration of KSET Results” and ensure that the rule of reservation as mandated in the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes

¶106

21 -

¶107

WP No.20935 of 2021

¶108

(Reservation and Appointment etc.) Act, 1990 is followed while declaring the results and certifying the candidates as eligible, subject-wise and category-wise.

¶109

Ordered accordingly.

¶110

Sd/(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶111

MBS CT:VH

Dr Gopala a v. Karnataka State Eligibility Test (Kset) Center

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Gopala a v. Karnataka State Eligibility Test (Kset) Center

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranava K N Vs the Karnataka State Law University

Gravity One Living Space Pvt. Ltd., Vs Naagamma

Smt. Veeramma @ Chikkaveeramma Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs H B Munivenkatappa

Sri H T Mariyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Murthy G Vs the Deputy Commissioner