Disposed

Sri. Vijay B.v, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2026WP/37947/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society to consider his representation seeking service weightage. Respondents agreed to consider it; the court disposed of the petition directing them to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider representation dated 03.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within eight weeks.

Sri. Vijay B.v, Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:15553 WP No. 37947 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 37947 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. VIJAY B.V, S/O. VENKATARAMAU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, HAVING AT MURAJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL KUNDUR MATT, DANDAGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASAN DISTRICT-573116

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MANJANNA M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001

¶16

THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, 8, M.SB-1, 6^TH AND 7^TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 SRI. SRINIVASA C, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15553 WP No. 37947 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER REPRESENTATION DATED 03.09.2025 WHICH IS AT ANNX-E AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R2 TO EXTEND THE SERVICE WEIGHTAGE TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

“Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 03.09.2025 which is at Annexure - E and further direct respondent No.2 to extend the service weightage to the petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the material on record.

¶27

It is the grievance of the petitioner that his representation dated 03.09.2025 at Annexure-E submitted to the respondents has not been considered so far by them, nor any order has been passed on the same. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15553 WP No. 37947 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that if a reasonable time is given, they would consider and pass necessary order on the said representation in accordance with law.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and joint submissions made by both the sides, I deem it just and proper to dispose of this petition directing the concerned respondents to address the grievance of the petitioner, consider and pass appropriate orders/take appropriate steps/action pursuant to the representation dated 03.09.2025 at Annexure-E submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶33

¶34

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

¶35

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

Sri. Vijay B.v, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Vijay B.v, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. Anthonyraju Vs Director (a and Hr)

Sri. P Venkat Naik Vs the Commissioner

Central Board of Direct Taxes Vs the Competent Authority for

H N Veerabhadrappa Vs H N Shivamurthy

B C Kiran Kumar Vs the Assistant Registrar of

Town Vividoddesha Sahakari Bhandara Niyamitha Vs Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies