Yogesha G P Vs the High Court of Karnataka

SAHANA. D. KONI D/O DEVENDRA KONI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO. 12, CENTRAL JAIL QUARTER, GHATAPRABHA, HINDALAGA POST, HINDALAGA DISTRICT, BELGAUM-591108

¶13

SHRISHAIL. N. NAIK, S/O NAYAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT YALLAMMA KOLLA ROAD, SHINDIKURBET, BELGAUM-591310

¶14

KOUSHIK. T. L. C/O THOKKULI LOKANATHA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42338 WP No. 21610 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

R/AT NO. 142, THOKKULI HOSE, MADIKERI TALUK, VTC KUNDALPADI PERAJE, PO PERAJE, SUB DISTRICT, MADIKERI DISTRICT, KODAGU-574314.

¶18

P. BINDU SHREE D/O PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO. 80, 8^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, SK LAYOUT, SV.K KALYANA MANTAPA. JNANAJYOTI NAGARA, ULLALA, BENGALURU-560056

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR GENERAL PUBLIC. BANGALORE 560001

¶23

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560009. REPRESENTED BY CAO

¶24

THE KARNATAKA JUDICIARY RECRUITMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PRINCIPLE DISTRICT AND COURT, BENGALURU RURAL, CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560009

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:42338 WP No. 21610 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. (REGISTRAR GENERAL)

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. B V VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE HCLSC SERVED)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LIST OF CANDIDATES DTD 11.07.2025 CALLED FOR THE INTERVIEW FOR THE POST OF TYPIST ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNX-A IN SO FAR PETITIONER CONCERNED TO THE WP ISSUED BY THE R-2. DIRECTING THE R-2 TO ISSUE FRESH LIST OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES FOR THE INTERVIEW ON THE BASIS OF THE SKILL TEST AND BY FOLLOWING C AND R RULES.

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the list of candidates dated 11.07.2025 called for the interview for

¶36

the post of Typist issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A.

¶37

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:42338 WP No. 21610 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

2.1. Respondent No.2 issued a notification dated

¶42

09.02.2024 inviting online applications for the direct recruitment to the post of Typist in Bengaluru District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru. The total number of vacancies notified was 29 posts of Typists and one backlog vacancy, and total number of posts called for was 30. Pursuant to the notification dated 09.02.2024, the petitioners have applied for the said post. The petitioners received admission tickets to appear for the skill test. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared for the skill test. The petitioners have secured good marks in the skill test. Respondent No.2 issued a notification of the list of candidates shortlisted for the interview. In the said list, several candidates have been selected whose performance was not good in the skill test. However, the petitioners being more meritorious, were not qualified for the interview. The petitioners, aggrieved by the list of candidates shortlisted for the interview vide Annexure-A, filed this writ petition.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42338 WP No. 21610 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The respondents have filed a statement of objections raising several defence. In paragraph No.19, the respondents have stated that, the writ petition becomes infructuous as the list of the candidates called for interview as per Annexure-A dated 11.07.2025 will not be acted upon and a fresh list of candidates eligible for interview will be prepared by the Office of respondent No.2, once the actual marks or percentage of marks secured by the candidates in each subjects in the qualifying examination is obtained. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶46

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, respondent No.2 has issued a list of candidates shortlisted for interview. The said list is not in accordance with the initial notification. He also submits that, the petitioners

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42338 WP No. 21610 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

have scored more marks in the skill test than the most of the candidates selected for the interview as listed in Annexure-A. Respondent No.2 did not select the petitioners for attending the interview. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶51

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the respondents are not going to act upon the impugned Annexure-A and she submits that, the writ petition does not survive for consideration in view of the statement made by the respondents in paragraph No.19 of the statement of objections. Hence, on this ground, she submits that, the writ petition filed by the petitioners has become infructuous, accordingly, she prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶52

Perused the records and considered the

¶53

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶54

There is no dispute that respondent No.2 issued a notification inviting applications for the post of Typist.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42338 WP No. 21610 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

The petitioners have submitted applications pursuant to the notification issued by respondent No.2. The petitioners have applied for the post of Typist. Respondent No.2 issued communications to the petitioners to appear for the skill test. The petitioners have appeared for the skill test. Respondent No.2, after conducting the skill test, prepared a list of candidates as shortlisted for the interview. The petitioners contended that, the petitioners have scored more marks in the skill test and respondent No.2 did not consider the said aspect and prepared the list of candidates shortlisted for the interview. As the respondents, in the statement of objections, have clearly stated that respondent No.2 is not going to act upon Annexure-A and a fresh list of candidates eligible for the interview will be prepared by the Office of respondent No.2. In view of the same, nothing further survives for consideration in this writ petition and the writ petition has become redundant.

¶58