The State of Karnataka Vs Shri Annappa Teradal Grameen Abhivruddi

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY PRE UNIVERSITY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶14

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, PRE UNIVERSITY AND LITERACY, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 012.

¶15

THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION PRE UNIVERSITY AND LITERACY, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWAEAM, BENGALURU – 560 012.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE OFFICE PF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION CHIKKODI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 201

¶17

… APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1693-DB WA No. 100648 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AND:

¶23

SHRI. ANNAPPA TERADAL GRAMEEN ABHIVRUDDI SHIKSHANA SANSTHES TERADAL SCIENCE PU COLLEGE ATHANI, R/BY ITS SECRETARY DR. NANDISH S/O. ANNAPPA TERDAL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR AND SECRETARY OF SHRI. ANNAPPA TERDAL GRAMEEN ABHIVRUDDI SHIKSHANA SANSTHE, ATHANI, R/O: 353, SHIVAGANGA HOSPITAL, ATHANI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA – 591 304.

¶24

… RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI. MANOJ N. BIKKANNAVAR, ADV.)

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2025 IN W.P.NO.106573/2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1693-DB WA No. 100648 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)

¶34

Aggrieved by the interim order dated 10.09.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.106573 of 2025, the respondent–State therein has preferred the present writ appeal.

¶35

The respondent-College was granted the necessary recognition to start a Pre-University College in the year 2019 and has been functioning since then. However, on 23.05.2025, on the ground that the respondent-College had obtained the necessary permission by playing fraud on the authorities concerned and that there were certain lacunae in the respondent-College, the recognition granted in its favour was withdrawn. Notwithstanding the said withdrawal, the respondentCollege admitted 157 students for the academic year 2025-26 subsequent to the order of cancellation. Thereafter, having failed to obtain a favourable order from the authorities concerned restoring its recognition, the respondent-College has preferred Writ petition No.106573 of 2025. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties concerned, passed the following interim order:

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1693-DB WA No. 100648 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

“i. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to open the SATS portal to enable the petitioner to enter the details of 157 students admitted for the additional 2 courses for which the application dated 30.05.2025 had been made.

¶40

ii. The said opening of the SATS portal and the registration of the students shall be subject to the result of this writ petition and subject to the result of the enquiry to be made by respondent No.1.

¶41

iii. The SATS portal shall be opened within 4 days from now, to enable such registration.

¶42

iv. The enquiry report to be filed on or before 06.11.2025.

¶43

v. Relist on 06.11.2025.”

¶44

Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this

¶45

writ appeal.

¶46

The case of the State is that once recognition is withdrawn from the respondent-College, it is not entitled to admit students, and if any admission made thereafter is at its own peril. However, in the course of arguments, learned AGA, upon instructions, fairly submits that all necessary steps would be taken to safeguard the interest of the students concerned. He further submits that the State is ready and willing to shift the students to a Government College, if required. The grievance of the State is that once recognition granted to the respondentCollege is withdrawn, it could not have admitted students, and it

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1693-DB WA No. 100648 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

is not possible for the State to consider them as students of the respondent-College and conduct examinations in the respondentCollege.

¶50

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentCollege submits that it has all necessary infrastructure and that, by mistake, certain false information was furnished at the time of obtaining recognition. He submits that, considering the present infrastructure, the respondent-College ought to be continued with the recognition granted. It is further submitted that the appellant-State authorities are unnecessarily harassing the respondent-College by not conducting the necessary enquiry into its affairs and delaying by taking decision in respect of the same.

¶51

Whether the recognition granted to the respondentCollege has been rightly withdrawn or not is the subject matter of proceedings before the concerned authorities, and whether the State rightly rejected the request of respondent-College to start additional sections for Pre-University Course is the subject matter of the writ petition.

¶52

Be that as it may, it is important to protect the interest of the students admitted by the respondent-College, who

¶53

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1693-DB WA No. 100648 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

are not even before this Court. No doubt, the respondent-College could not have admitted the students without due recognition. If the recognition is withdrawn, it is entitled to challenge the same in the manner known to law and should admit students only if permitted in law to do so. The respondent-College clearly erred in admitting 157 students for the academic year 2025-26. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-College that the said students have attended classes during the academic year 2025-26. It is not the case of the State that it intends to deny the students the opportunity to write the examination for the first year PUC, said to commence from 10.02.2026. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error in the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, and the same is hereby upheld.

¶56

However, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the respondent-College should not admit students for the coming academic year 2026-27 without obtaining necessary permissions. If the respondentCollege fails to obtain the necessary permission to continue the 157 students for second year PUC, the State shall be at liberty to transfer them to some other Institution.

¶57