Sri Rajendra Kumar S Kadakol Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. RAJENDRA KUMAR S. KADAKOL S/O SUNGAPPA V KADAKOL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKED AS HINDU TEACHER R/AT NO.1, OLD AIRPORT ROAD NAL KODIHALLI, OPPOSITE TO KGA BENGALURU - 560 008.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. SHILPA RANI., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY REP BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CO-OPERATIVE BOARD BUILDING 6^TH AND 7^TH FLOOR, NEAR CHANDRIKA HOTEL CUNNINGAM ROAD

¶16

BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. ABHISHEK KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.M. PARITHOSH., ADVOCATE FOR R2

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:50179 WP No. 285 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-2 TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE RELAX THE AGE AND APPOINT THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CADRES AND RECRUITMENT REGULATIONS 2011 AND IT TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2018 IN W.P.NO.54499/2015 (S-RES) WHICH IS PLACED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the

¶27

following reliefs:

¶28

''a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the endorsement dated 27.08.2021 in No. KVShiSaSa/Aadalita/HoNe/Hi-05/2014-15 issued by the second respondent, true copy of which is produced as ANNEXURE-M and consequently issue writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondents to consider to relax the age and appoint the petitioner in accordance with Cadre and Recruitment Regulations 2011 and in terms of the order dated 12.10.2018 in W P No.54499/2015 (S-RES) which is placed at ANNEXURE-H.

¶29

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondents to consider the representation of petitioner dated 22.03.2021 produced as Annexure-L and in terms of this Hon'ble court order dated 22.10.2019 in W.P.No.81138131/2015 (Annexure-J).

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:50179 WP No. 285 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents grants weightage of 5% for each academic years' service irrespective of the date of appointment and proportionate weightage to the service which is less than one half the academic year and further consider the cases of the petitioner for appointment to the posts to which they have applied to meet the ends of justice;

¶34

d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents include the name of the petitioner in the final select list and further consider the case of the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Hindi Teacher in the services of the schools run/controlled by the Karnataka residential Institutional Society from the date on which the respondents have appointed Teachers in the year 2012/with effect from occurrence of the vacancy or whichever is earlier and grant them fixation of pay, arrears of salary and increments and all the consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice.

¶35

e) Issue any other writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.''

¶36

The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ

¶37

petition are as follows:

¶38

The petitioner was appointed as a Hindi teacher in Kitturu Rani Channama Residential School at Alamel, Sindagi Taluk, Bijapur District on 01.09.2009. Based upon the rules being framed during the year 2011, the similarly placed petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.20204-20364/2011, which came to be disposed of vide Order dated 13.07.2012.

¶39

The cut off percentage for Hindi teacher post, in category 3B is 61.37%. The petitioner scored 57.93% and

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:50179 WP No. 285 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

more particularly the difference of marks being very meager

¶44

that is 3.44%. The respondents denied considering the petitioner's service from 2009-10, as one of the academic year and not granted weightage of 5% to the petitioner. As per the Order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.8113-131/2015, disposed of on 22.10.2019, the petitioner is entitled to be extended his service of weightage to 67.93% and the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the post and if that is extended the percentage of marks secured would be 67.93% and if that is taken, the petitioner gets entitled for selection to the said post. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similarly placed petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.27418-27525/2013 and other connected matters, this Court disposed of the said writ petitions on 14.08.2013, wherein this Court extended the weightage to the service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis. She submitted

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50179 WP No. 285 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

that the petitioner is similarly placed and is entitled for the similar benefit and she also submits that as per the expression used in the rules/regulation, each completed year of service is already considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the

¶50

Karnataka Residential Education Institutions Society Vs. Shambuling Patil and others in Special Leave (Civil) to Appeal No.24767/2023 vide Order dated 22.07.2025. Hence, on this ground she prays to allow the writ petition.

¶51

Per contra, Smt. B.P. Radha, learned AGA submits that the petitioner is not entitled for weightage to service rendered by the petitioner and it has to be counted for the academic year. That is, the academic year comes to an end in the month of March i.e., on 31.03.2010, wherein it is less than one year. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶52

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶53

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Hindi teacher in Kitturu Rani Channama Residential School at Alamel, Sindagi Taluk, on 01.09.2009.

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:50179 WP No. 285 of 2022

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

The petitioner was appointed in the category 3B and cut off percentage for the post of Hindi teacher in category 3B is 61.37%. The petitioner scored 57.93% and more particularly the difference of marks being very meager i.e., 3.44%. The respondent denied considering the petitioner's service from 2009-10 as one academic year and declined to grant a weightage of 5% to the petitioner on the ground that he is overage. That this Court had occasion to consider the said issue in W.P.No.54499/2015 in the case of Chidanand Malappa Adigonde Vs. State of Karnataka and others , disposed of on 12.10.2018, wherein this Court considered the notification in paragraph No.4 which reads as follows:

¶58

'' 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The straight question that arise for consideration is what could be the age as per the Notification. The relevant part of the 'Note' with regard to age limit as per Notification is extracted hereinbelow:

¶59

"Note.- Age Limit: Maximum age limit for posts from serial number 23 to 31 is for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Category-I of backward classes is 45 years. For IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB of other Backward Classes is 43 years and for General - 40 years.

¶60

Provided that in respect of candidates who are working in the posts at serial number 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 in column (2) of this schedule in Morarji Desai Residential Schools on contract basis and are appointed by the Karnataka Residential Education Institutions Society, the

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:50179 WP No. 285 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

maximum age limit shall be relaxed by one year for each completed years of service.''

¶65

5. As per the said Notification, the candidates who are working in Morarji Desai Residential Schools on contract basis and are appointed by the Karnataka Residential Education Institutions Society, the maximum age limit shall be relaxed by one year for each completed years of service….''

¶66

Admittedly, the notification is very clear that in respect of the candidates who have secured on a contract basis and have appointed by respondent No.2, the maximum age limit shall be relaxed for one year for each completed years of service. It is not open for the respondents to make such a classification. The relaxation is extendable to all even if the applicants are serving the respondent through outsourcing agency.

¶67

Further, insofar as one year is concerned, each completed year of service is not defined under the Regulation, 2011. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Karnataka Residential Education Institutions Society Vs. Shambuling Patil and others (Supra) , Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has framed the question which reads as:

¶68

''Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in issuing a direction to provide proportionate weightage even if one year of service is not completed while awarding the marks? ''

¶69

8 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:50179 WP No. 285 of 2022

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

The Hon'ble Apex Court extracted paragraph Nos.29,

¶73

30, 32 and 33 of the learned Single Judge, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that by allowing proportionate benefit every candidates shall be benefited and no one is going to be affected adversely. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has already considered the said aspect and passed the impugned judgment. The petitioner is also entitled for similar benefits.

¶74

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

(i). The writ petition is allowed.

¶77

(ii). The impugned endorsement dated 27.08.2021

¶78

vide Annexure-M issued by the respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶79

(iii) The respondents are directed to consider to relax the age and appoint the petitioner in accordance with the Cadre and Recruitment Regulation, 2011 in terms of the order passed by this Court in

¶80