Dismissed¶42

Nagaraj Duragannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2025WP/5241/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: negative marking; quarter mark vs 25 per cent deduction; OMR sheet revaluation; Rule 2 Schedule 10, Karnataka General Services (PreUniversity) (Recruitment) Rules, 2013; recruitment notification dated 15.5.2014; selection list of Government PU College lecturers dated 15.10.2019; Karnataka Examinations Authority; KSAT Application No.6363/2019; Tribunal order dated 16.11.2021; NEET and KPSC examination norms; Articles 226 & 227 Constitution of India; writ of certiorari; WP No. 5241 of 2022 (S-KSAT); High Court of Karnataka; Krishna S Dixit; Ramachandra D. Huddar; decided 15 April 2025; petition dismissed, costs made easy.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and costs were made easy. ¶42

Nagaraj Duragannavar Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and costs were made easy.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether, under Rule 2 (Schedule 10) of the Karnataka General Services (PreUniversity) (Recruitment) Rules, 2013 and the recruitment notification dated 15.5.2014, the deduction for each wrong answer in the lecturer recruitment examination is a quarter mark or 25 per cent of the marks earmarked for the answer, warranting revaluation of OMR sheets.

¶35

Court's answer

The negative valuation prescribed under the Rules specifies a quarter mark as against each wrong answer, and not 0.25 (25 per cent) of the marks prescribed for the answer in question.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

NEET & KPSC examinations' percentage-basis directions do not aid the petitioner because those norms were not adopted in the subject examination; how the policy of negative marking should be is a matter left to the Executive.

¶36

Key takeaways

The Rule prescribing the negative-marking regime was not challenged as such; had the Rule Maker intended a 25 per cent deduction rather than a quarter mark, he would have structured the Rule accordingly.ratio¶36
In the guise of interpretation, a court cannot rewrite the Rule.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (S-KSAT) — petitioner assailed the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 16.11.2021 dismissing Application No.6363/2019, wherein he had sought quashing of the selection list of lecturers in Government PU Colleges published on 15.10.2019 by the Karnataka Examinations Authority and revaluation of OMR sheets of all candidates. Contention was that Rule 2 (Schedule 10) of the Karnataka General Services (PreUniversity) (Recruitment) Rules, 2013 read with the recruitment notification dated 15.5.2014 requires deduction of a quarter mark per wrong answer, not 25 per cent of the marks earmarked for the answer. The Court held that the Rules specify a quarter mark deduction per wrong answer; NEET/KPSC percentage-based norms do not apply as they were not adopted in this examination, negative-marking policy being a matter for the Executive; the Rule itself was unchallenged and, had the Rule Maker intended 25 per cent, the Rule would have been so structured; a court cannot rewrite the Rule in the guise of interpretation. Petition dismissed, costs made easy. Bench: Justice Krishna S Dixit (author) and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar; decided 15 April 2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15463-DB WP No. 5241 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO.5241 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NAGARAJ DURAGANNAVAR S/O VENKAPPA DURAGANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O HOUSE NO.284, DURGADEVI COLONY, WARD NO.18, GOKAK, DISTRICT BELGAVI - 591 307.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MADANGOUDA N. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, (PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION) M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR

¶14

PRE - UNIVERSITY EDUCATION BOARD, SAMPIGE ROAD, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 012.

¶15

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

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. N.K.RAMESH, ADV. FOR R3)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15463-DB WP No. 5241 of 2022

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO. 6363/2019 AND UPON PERUSAL, MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUAHSING THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2021 IN APPLICATION NO.6363/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE - D AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.6363/2019 AS PRAYED THEREIN AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND

¶22

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶25

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 16.11.2021 whereby, his Application No.6363/2019 having been dismissed, relief as sought for therein has been denied. In the said Application, he had called in question for quashing the selection list of lecturers in Government PU Colleges published on 15.10.2019 by the 3^rd respondent herein and further, for a direction to the said respondent to undertake revaluation of OMR sheets of all

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15463-DB WP No. 5241 of 2022

¶27

the candidates in terms of Negative marking as provided

¶28

under Rule 2 of the Karnataka General Services (PreUniversity) (Recruitment) Rules, 2013. In other words, for each wrong answer, a Quarter mark is to be deducted and not 25 per cent. This is supported by the recruitment notification dated 15.5.2014, relevant part of which reads as under:

¶29

“… the valuation of multiple choice question shall be done on the basis of negative marks valuation. In case of wrong answer, quarter mark shall be deducted for each wrong answer. ”

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws our

¶31

attention to Schedule 10 of Rule 2 of 2013 Rules to contend that what is to be deducted for a wrong answer is

¶32

not just Quarter mark but 25 per cent of the marks earmarked for such answer. According to him, this view gains credence from the literature of NEET & KPSC Examinations. Learned AGA and the learned Penal Counsel appearing for the respondents repel this contention drawing our attention to the Rule position.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15463-DB WP No. 5241 of 2022

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶35

parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the Negative valuation prescribed under the Rules specifies Quarter mark as against each of the wrong answers, and not 0.25 per cent of the marks prescribed for the answer in question. Despite vehement submission, learned counsel is not in a position to show wherefrom he justifiably draws the idea of percentage when what is deductible is specified to be Quarter mark.

¶36

The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in NEET & KPSC Examinations of the kind, direction is on percentage basis, does not come to his aid inasmuch as those norms are not adopted in the subject examination. How the Policy of Negative marking should be, is a matter left to the Executive, to put it in a broader way. Added, the Rule as such, is not challenged. If the Rule Maker intended 25 per cent deduction vis a vis Quarter mark, he would have structured the Rule

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15463-DB WP No. 5241 of 2022

¶38

accordingly. In the guise of interpretation, court cannot rewrite the Rule.

¶39

The impugned order of the Tribunal is framed

¶40

with the above view in mind, although there is a lot of scope for expressing it more articulately than what is stated. There is always scope for improvement even in heaven, said Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), an English Playwright.

¶41

In the above circumstances, this petition being

¶42

devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.

¶43

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶46

Bsv/cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Nagaraj Duragannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraj Duragannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S S. B Valves (India) Private Limited Vs the Asst General Manager

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs Iqvia Rds (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Captain Srinivasa Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sequeira Star Home Builders Vs Brayan J Vaz