Dismissed¶65

Sri Siddappa H v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2026WP/10733/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Village Administrative Officer; PH quota appointment 2012 (O.M. 20.03.2012); hearing disability 41% Medical Board certificate; O.M. 06.12.2024 (Annexure-A8) directing audiological examination; All India Speech and Hearing, Mysuru; KSAT Application No. 5545/2024 order 09.02.2026 upheld; writ under Articles 226/227 dismissed; Smt. Archana Reena W.P. No. 27041/2025 (dt. 23.10.2025) distinguished; repeated medical examination of disabled employee permitted.

What did the court decide?

Having heard counsel and perused the papers, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 09.02.2026 in Application No. 5545/2024. ¶51

Sri Siddappa H Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, already medically certified with 41% hearing disability, could lawfully be directed yet again to undergo medical examination at the All India Speech and Hearing, Mysuru. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

Having heard counsel and perused the papers, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 09.02.2026 in Application No. 5545/2024.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Referral of the petitioner to the All India Speech and Hearing, Mysuru — a specialised institute in speech and hearing — for medical examination involves no illegality or error; whenever called upon to appear before the institute for medical test, it is for the petitioner to appear.

¶57

Key takeaways

The decision in Smt. Archana Reena, passed on the peculiarity of that case (the petitioner therein had undergone medical test thrice and was certified with 56% hearing disability), would have no application to the facts of the present case.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (DB: S.G. Pandit & K.V. Aravind JJ.), W.P. No. 10733 of 2026 (S-KSAT), order dated 08.04.2026 — Dismissed. A Village Administrative Officer appointed in 2012 under the P.H. quota (O.M. dt. 20.03.2012, Annexure-A2), whose probation was confirmed in September 2014 and who held a Medical Board certificate recording 41% hearing disability, challenged before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal an O.M. dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure-A8) directing a fresh medical examination at the All India Speech and Hearing, Mysuru; the Tribunal (Application No. 5545/2024, order dt. 09.02.2026) refused interference, treating the notice as internal correspondence. The Division Bench declined to interfere, holding that referral to the specialised institute involved no illegality or error and that the petitioner must appear whenever called upon; the Coordinate Bench order in Smt. Archana Reena (W.P. No. 27041/2025, dt. 23.10.2025), rendered on its peculiar facts (petitioner therein tested thrice, certified 56% hearing disability), was distinguished as having no application.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19647-DB WP No. 10733 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 10733 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI SIDDAPPA H S/O HANUMANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WORKING AS VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, BILUVALA CIRCLE, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 548. R/AT MALLAPPA HOUSE, IN FRONT OF TALUK OFFICE, KADUR TOWN, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 548.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MARUTHI S., ADV.)

¶13

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S BUILDING, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.

¶17

THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:19647-DB WP No. 10733 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSINOER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-577 101.

¶23

THE THASILAR, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 228.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA)

¶26

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2026 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO. 5545/2024, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A, AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 06.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO UNDERGO REPEATED AUDIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CHALLENGE BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:19647-DB WP No. 10733 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶34

This writ petition is directed against the order dated

¶35

09.02.2026 in Application No.5545/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder the petitioner’s challenge to notice dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure-A8) directing the petitioner to appear for medical examination at All India Speech and Hearing at Mysuru for medical test is rejected.

¶36

Heard learned counsel Sri.Maruthi.S., for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate B.Ravindranath for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶37

It is stated that the petitioner was selected and appointed as Village Administrative Officer in the year 2012 under PH category. The probation period of the petitioner was declared as satisfactory in September, 2014. On the complaint received against the petitioner

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19647-DB WP No. 10733 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

with regard to his disability, respondent No.3 issued O.M., dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure-A8) directing the petitioner to appear before the All India Speech and Hearing at Mysuru for medical examination. The said O.M., is questioned before the Tribunal by the petitioner on the contention that the petitioner has already undergone medical test and the Medical Board has issued certificate on 16.01.2024 (Annexure-A5) holding that the petitioner has hearing disability of about 41%. The Tribunal under impugned order refused to interfere with the impugned O.M. As such, the petitioner is before this Court questioning the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as impugned O.M., dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure-A8).

¶41

Learned counsel Sri.Maruthi.S., for petitioner would contend that the O.M., directing the petitioner to appear before the All India Speech and Hearing at Mysuru is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the respondents could not have again and again asked the petitioner to undergo medical test. It is

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19647-DB WP No. 10733 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

specifically contended that the petitioner had undergone medical test and the Medical Board of District Hospital Cikkamagaluru has already issued medical certificate stating that the petitioner has 41% of hearing disability. Therefore, the petitioner would submit that there is no need for the respondents to refer again the petitioner to undergo medical test. Learned counsel would place reliance on the order dated 23.10.2025 in W.P.No.27041/2025 (SMT.ARCHANA REENA VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA AND ANOTHER) passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court whereunder he submits that identical notice was quashed with liberty to initiate fresh action.

¶45

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on

¶46

the other hand would support the order passed by the Tribunal by submitting that the complaint against the petitioner is that he would not suffer any hearing disability. As such, it had become necessary for the authorities to refer the petitioner for medical test at All

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19647-DB WP No. 10733 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

India Speech and Hearing at Mysuru. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶50

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶51

the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶52

On going through the order passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal on placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner could not have challenged the said notice since it is only an internal correspondence.

¶53

Be that as it may, the petitioner was selected

¶54

and appointed as Village Administrative Officer under O.M., dated 20.03.2012 (Annexure-A2) under P.H., quota. The petitioner had claimed that she suffered from hearing disability. The petitioner earlier was referred to undergo medical test whereunder the Medical Board of District Hospital, Chikkamagaluru (Annexure-A4) had certified that

¶55

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:19647-DB WP No. 10733 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the petitioner suffers from hearing disability of 41%. However, the authority has taken a decision to refer the petitioner to a specialized institute i.e., All India Speech and Hearing at Mysuru with regard to disability suffered by the petitioner. It is not known why the petitioner is hesitant to undergo medical test. All India Speech and Hearing at Mysuru is a specialized institute in the field of speech and hearing. We do not find any illegality or error in referring the petitioner to All India Speech and Hearing at Mysuru. Whenever the petitioner is called upon to appear before the institute for medical test, it is for the petitioner to appear.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the decision of ARCHANA REENA (supra) and we have gone through the said decision. The said decision makes it clear that the said order was passed in the peculiarity of the said case and it is seen that the petitioner therein had undergone medical test thrice and where it was certified that the petitioner therein was

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:19647-DB WP No. 10733 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

suffering hearing disability of 56%. The said decision

¶63

would have no application to the facts of the present case.

¶64