Disposed¶¶47

Umme Khulsum v. Karnataka Examinations Authority (Kea)

MBBS admission – KEA counselling – religious minority (Muslim minority) quota claim

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2025WP/32383/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru, W.P. No. 32383 of 2025 (EDN-MED ADM), decided 14.11.2025, bench Jayant Banerji & K.V. Aravind. Petitioner Umme Khulsum sought mandamus to KEA for MBBS seat under Muslim minority quota after erroneous '0'/'not claimed' entry in application form dated 24.01.2025 and 'claimed and not verified' remark in details of 26.05.2025; not qualified in rounds 1–3; claim declined as belated (writ filed 27.10.2025); disposed with liberty to join stray round counselling.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus/allotment granted; petitioner left open to participate in the stray round of counselling, if otherwise eligible. ¶¶47

Umme Khulsum Vs Karnataka Examinations Authority (Kea) — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46552-DB WP No. 32383 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶7

AND

¶8

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

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 32383 OF 2025 (EDN-MED ADM)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

UMME KHULSUM, D/O ASGAR ALI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT NO.915 GROUND FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, DIVANARA PALYA, GOKUL EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 054.

¶12

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI.R.PUSHPAHASA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

AND:

¶16

KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY (KEA), 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012. REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46552-DB WP No. 32383 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, NO.344/345, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT. AZRA DUNDAGE, AGA FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO (I) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 1^ST RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION AND ALLOT HER A SEAT FOR MBBS UNDER RELIGIOUS MINORITY (MUSLIM MINORITY) QUOTA (II) ISSUE ANY SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/S, OR DIRECTIONS AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S OR (III) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 1^ST RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION FOR A SEAT FOR MBBS UNDER GENERAL CATEGORY WITH THE BENEFITS AVAILABLE FOR RELIGIOUS MINORITY (MUSLIM MINORITY) QUOTA AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46552-DB WP No. 32383 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

The petition has been filed seeking the following

¶31

reliefs:

¶32

“i. issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner’s application and allot her a seat for MBBS under religious minority (Muslim Minority) quota.

¶33

ii. Issue any such other appropriate writ/s, or directions and pass such other order/s, under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶34

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had duly applied under religious minority candidate, her religion being Muslim. In her application form, she claimed reservation as a religious minority. The application form was downloaded on 24.01.2025 by the petitioner in which in the table titled “Claimed Study Years Summary in Karnataka” at Sl.No.5, against the particulars for

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:46552-DB WP No. 32383 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

study years for religious claim, the claim was wrongly reflected as ‘0’ and in the remarks, it was written “not claimed”. There is a note appended to this application form stating that ‘not verified details to be verified at the 12^th /P.U. College level’.

¶39

Learned counsel states that in the verified reference details, which was downloaded from the website of the Karnataka Examinations Authority¹ on 26.05.2025, against the summary of study years for religious claim, though it correctly stated that she had claimed 10 years thereunder but under the remarks column it was stated “claimed and not verified”. It is stated that the petitioner is a young adult and she had no guidance and because of that, after the application form was downloaded by her on 24.01.2025, she could not make any representation to the KEA. It is stated that therefore, the petitioner, being entitled to a seat as a religious minority, should be granted a seat.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the KEA, Sri.N.K.Ramesh, states that the petitioner has appeared and not qualified in the first, second and third rounds of counselling.

¶41

1 KEA

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:46552-DB WP No. 32383 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

In the third round of counselling, she was permitted as a religious minority candidate. However, the petitioner did not qualify in view of her merit ranking. It is fairly stated by the learned counsel for the KEA that it would be open for the petitioner to opt for the stray round of counselling.

¶46

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

¶47

since we note that no steps were taken by the petitioner after the application downloaded by her showed an erroneous entry, at this stage, by filing a writ petition on 27.10.2025, she may not be permitted to raise such a claim, as made in the instant petition. Leaving it open to the petitioner to participate in the stray round of counselling, if otherwise eligible, this petition is disposed of.

¶48

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶49

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Umme Khulsum v. Karnataka Examinations Authority (Kea)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umme Khulsum v. Karnataka Examinations Authority (Kea)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kum. Vaishnavi Mali Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.C.Shivamurthy Vs Smt.B.v.Savithramma

Smt. Shakeela Vs Mr. Prakash Bhandary

V Manjunatha Vs Smt B Neetha

Smt Usharani U Vs Sri K Deepak Kumar

Smt Priya Karthik Vs Sri Kartik Sundaram