Gudasab Vs Principal Secretary to Govt

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS GRANT WEIGHTAGE TO THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONER IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SUBJECT TAUGHT BY HIM, FOR INCLUDING HIM IN THE SELECTION LIST OF TEACHERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POSITION OF KANNADA TEACHER IN HIS STREAM AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:35250 WP No. 17621 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶35

“a) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents grant weightage to the service rendered by the petitioners irrespective of the subject taught by him, for including him in the selection list of teachers for appointment to the position of Kannada teacher in his stream;

¶36

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to include the names of the petitioner in the final select list and further consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of teachers in their respective streams in the services of the schools run/controlled by the Karnataka Residential Education Institutional Society from the date on which the respondents have appointed teachers in the year 2012, with effect from occurrence of the vacant or whichever is earlier and grant them fixation of pay, arrears of salary and increments and all the consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice;

¶37

c) Grant such other orders of relief/s as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case by allowing this

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:35250 WP No. 17621 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶43

learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.

¶44

The issue in controversy is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri. RAMANJANYA G B AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF

¶45

KARNATAKA - W.P.No.31387/2025 dated 21.02.2026, SRI. SUNEEL KUMARA M.S VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA - W.P.No.28157/2024 dated 18.02.2025 and SRI. SUNEEL KUMAR M.S. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA - W.A.No.474/2025 dated 27.11.2025, wherein it is held as under:

¶46

In W.P.No.31387/2025:

¶47

" ORAL ORDER

¶48

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35250 WP No. 17621 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

respondent to consider the representations dated 09.10.2025, 09.10.2025, 22.09.2025, 02.09.2025, 29.09.2025, 29.09.2025, 22.09.2025, 03.08.2023, 16.12.2020, 27.03.2025, 26.09.2025, 03.08.2023, and 21.07.2014, vide Annexures S, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10, S11, and S12, respectively, to the extent of service weightage for the period from the date of joining till the date of notification.

¶52

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not press the other prayers.

¶53

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, in an identical matter, this Court, in W.P.No. 34626/2025, disposed of the matter on 15.12.2025 by directing the second respondent to consider the representation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 4. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition stands disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 09.10.2025, 09.10.2025, 22.09.2025, 02.09.2025, 29.09.2025, 29.09.2025, 22.09.2025, 03.08.2023, 16.12.2020, 27.03.2025, 26.09.2025, 03.08.2023, and 21.07.2014, vide

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35250 WP No. 17621 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Annexures S, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10, S11, and S12, respectively, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶57

In W.P.No.28157/2024:

¶58

ORAL ORDER

¶59

Heard learned counsel Sri.Sharandeep, for Sri. Ravikumara.B.R., learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent No.1. No notice ordered to second respondent.

¶60

2. The petitioner is before this Court praying for the following relief:

¶61

"(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to direct the respondents to consider the representation letter dated 08.07.2024 (vide Annexure-L1) and to grant service weightage for the period from 01.06.2007 to 10.04.2011 (i.e., for a duration of 4 years) as a teacher."

¶62

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked in second respondent-Society, in its Educational Institution as Subject Teacher, Warden

¶63

7 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:35250 WP No. 17621 of 2026

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

as well as Principal from 2007 to 2011. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court questioning the selection list which was taken up to Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it was directed to provide service weightage to the petitioner and the persons like the petitioner in the recruitment. It is the case of the petitioner that without providing service weightage, case of the petitioner is rejected for selection and appointment as Principal of the Educational Institution run by second respondent. In that regard, petitioner said to have submitted representations to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as at Annexures-L1 and L2, both dated 08.07.2024 requesting to consider his case for appointment as Principal or Social Science or Kannada Language Teacher. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has not taken any action on the said representation as such, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶67

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, I am of the view that writ petition suffers from delay and laches.

¶68

5. The petitioner who claims to be working as Subject Teacher, Warden and Principal of the Educational Institution run by second respondent and his case for selection as Principal or Subject Teacher or

¶69

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35250 WP No. 17621 of 2026

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Language Teacher was rejected without providing service weightage and selection list was published on 08.07.2014. The petitioner submitted representation only in the year 2024 requesting the second respondent to award weightage and consideration of his case for selection. The selection has taken place more than 10 years back and the petitioner submitted representation only in the year 2024. The petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the case and in the matter of appointment shortest delay would disentitle relief from the Court. Moreover, the petitioner has not made any selected person as party to the petition. At this length of time, it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct consideration of representations of the petitioner for selection and appointment, which is completed in the year 2014-15.

¶72

6. Only on the ground of delay and laches, writ petition stands rejected."

¶73

In WP.No.474/2025 :

¶74

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶75

1. The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in

¶76

9 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:35250 WP No. 17621 of 2026

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

W.P.No.28157/2024 (S-RES) instituted by the petitioner.

¶80

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition, for the sake of convenience.

¶81

3. The petitioner who has been working on contract basis in the respondent No.2-Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society as Subject Teacher, Warden as well as Principal from 2007 to 2011 had filed the writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 08.07.2024 and grant service weightage for the period from 01.06.2017 to 10.04.2011 i.e., for a period of four years in respect of the selection for the post of Principal for which the selection was completed way back on 08.07.2014 and the select list came to be published on the said date.

¶82

4. Some of the candidates, who intended to participate in the selection process had filed writ petition Nos.20204-20364/2011 (S-RES) claiming weightage for the services rendered by them on contract basis. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 13.07.2012 had allowed the writ petitions in part, and observed that the Principals and Teachers appointed on or after 20042005 were entitled for the benefit of the service weightage as specified in

¶83

10 -

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:35250 WP No. 17621 of 2026

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 2011, and a direction was issued to the authorities to redo the selection process by extending the service weightage to the petitioners and similarly placed candidates.

¶87

5. The said judgment and order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.5127/2012, W.A.Nos.583161/2012 and other connected appeals. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2013 upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and observed that the respondents in the said writ appeals would be entitled for service weightage provided they had appeared for combined competitive examinations held from 24.07.2011 to 27.07.2011.

¶88

6. Thus, the benefit of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was confined only to the petitioners who were before the Court.

¶89

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said judgment of the Division Bench was challenged in SLP.(C).CC.No.15456/2013, which came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2013.

¶90

11 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:35250 WP No. 17621 of 2026

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

8. Another Writ Petition No.59175/2015 (S-RES) came to be filed by one Smt. Nagamani R, which came to be disposed off by judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 wherein the learned Single Judge rejected the stand of the respondent that petitioner though served as Hindi Teacher, had applied for the post of Social Science Teacher, therefore, she would not be entitled for service weightage. The learned Single Judge was of the view, that notification did not discriminate between the applicants, who had applied for teaching one subject though had taught some other subject. It was held that these candidates would also be entitled for weightage on the basis of the number of years of service as per the plain reading of the notification. The 2nd respondent was directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the writ petition for Social Science Teacher itself by extending service weightage for period between 02.11.2007 till the date of Notification.

¶94

9. The said judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 passed in W.P.No.59175/2015 (S-Res) was challenged by the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society in W.A.No.299/2019, wherein the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.06.2019 dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The aggrieved

¶95

12 -

¶96

NC: 2026:KHC:35250 WP No. 17621 of 2026

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

Educational Institution preferred SLA (C) No.1109/2020 against the said judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.299/2019, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23.02.2024.

¶99

10. From the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court, it is evident that direction was only in respect of the petitioner in the said case i.e., Smt.R.Nagamani and it was not for all the candidates, who had applied in pursuance to the advertisement.

¶100

11. The appellant in the instant appeal had filed the W.P.No.28157 in the year 2024 and the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the judgment passed in the case of Smt.R. Nagamani, at this belated stage.

¶101

12. We do not find that the impugned judgment and order dated 18.02.2025 requires an interference and therefore, we dismiss this appeal."

¶102

4. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and

¶103

appropriate to dispose of this petition by directing the respondents to address the grievances of the petitioner

¶104

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:35250 WP No. 17621 of 2026

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

and consider and pass appropriate orders / take

¶107

appropriate decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law, bearing in mind the order passed by this Court in

¶108

W.P.No.31387/2025, W.P.No.28157/2024 and

¶109

W.A.No.474/2025.

¶110