Sri Davalasab Mabusab Makandar Vs the Registrar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Davalasab Mabusab Makandar Vs the Registrar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.05.2026 at Annexure-A within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; any rejection to be accompanied by reasons.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.05.2026 (Annexure-A) regarding his non-inclusion in the list of candidates called for viva-voce by notification dated 30.04.2026, despite his earlier intimation dated 10.12.2024 to participate in the viva-voce. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the representation has been submitted, it is required that the said representation be acted upon and necessary orders be passed within a reasonable period of time, either accepting or rejecting it, in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

If an order of rejection of the representation is made, it is to be accompanied by reasons, more so since the petitioner was earlier called upon to participate in the viva-voce and now his name is deleted.

Key takeaways

A mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 30.05.2026 at Annexure-A within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶¶43
This Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner; that question is left open.obiter¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India allowed. The petitioner, earlier intimated on 10.12.2024 to participate in a viva-voce, found his name omitted from the list of candidates called for viva-voce by notification dated 30.04.2026; his representation dated 30.05.2026 (Annexure-A) went unconsidered. Held: a submitted representation must be acted upon within a reasonable time, either accepting or rejecting it in accordance with law; any rejection must be accompanied by reasons, particularly where the candidate was earlier called for viva-voce and subsequently deleted. Mandamus issued to the Registrar General and Registrar (Recruitment), High Court of Karnataka, to consider the representation within two weeks of receipt of the order. The Court expressly expressed no opinion on the petitioner's entitlement.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31721 WP No. 17222 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 17222 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI DAVALASAB MABUSAB MAKANDAR S/O MABUSAB, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT DAMBALA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MUNDARAGI TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 582 101

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHRIKANTA SHARMA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, PRINCIPAL BENCH, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE REGISTRAR (RECRUITMENT) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, PRINCIPAL BENCH, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TOA) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS (OR) ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION DATED 30.05.2026 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31721 WP No. 17222 of 2026

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Nitin Ramesh., learned counsel submits that he

would be appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. Registry is directed to print his name as that appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 on vakalathnamma being filed and delete the name of Ms.B.V.Vidyulatha., as that appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus (ir) any other Appropriate Writ directions to the Respondents to consider representation dated 30.05.2026 at ANNEXURE-A and

b. Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus (ir) any other Appropriate Writ directions to the Respondents to consider the Petitioner candidature for the vivavoice scheduled between 01.06.2026 to 11.06.2026 vide intimation letter dated 30.04.2026.

c. Issue any other Writ or Writs, direction or directions in the Form of a Writ, as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31721 WP No. 17222 of 2026

HC-KAR

The grievance of the petitioner is that once earlier on

10.12.2024, he was intimated to participate in the viva-voce. Subsequently, by way of a notification dated 30.04.2026 his name is not find mention in the list of candidates called to participate in the viva voce. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.05.2026, produced at Annexure-A which has not been considered.

Since the representation has been submitted, it is required that the said Representation be acted upon and necessary orders be passed within a reasonable period of time, either accepting or rejecting the Representation submitted, in accordance with law.

Needless say, if an order of rejection is made it is to be accompanied by reasons. More so, since the petitioner was earlier called upon to participate in the viva-voce and now his name is deleted. Hence, this Court passes the following;

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31721 WP No. 17222 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. The writ petition allowed .

ii. A mandamus is issued, directing respondents to consider the representation dated 30.05.2026 at Annexure-A within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner.

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65