- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22938-DB WP No. 8326 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 8326 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD. M S/O G M MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.883, 9TH CROSS, JNANABHARATHI LAYOUT, I BLOCK, RVCE, BENGALURU - 560 059. 2. SRI. PUTTARAJU N S/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT KOLATHURU VILLAGE, SOSALE HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU - 571 120. 3. SRI. LAXMAN INGALE S/O HEBALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, R/AT SANKHA VILLAGE, SANKH INDI, VIJAYAPURA - 586 205. 4. SRI. GOPILAL S/O REVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT ASHILAL TENDA, LINGASUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 125. Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22938-DB WP No. 8326 of 2024 5. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT AMBERKHED, BALABATTI, YADARMI, KALBURGI - 585 309. 6. SRI. LAYAPPA INGALE S/O HEBALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT SANKH CHANDACHAN, VIJAYAPURA - 586 205. 7. SRI. SHIVASHARANAPPA BADIGER, S/O YAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT KALKERI GOUTAM, BUDHA NAGAR, TALIKOTI, VIJAYAPURA - 586 118. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHARAN B.T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NO.306, III FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN SC AND ST SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANTS, BACKLOG APPOINTMENT SELECTION COMMITTEE AND CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22938-DB WP No. 8326 of 2024 BENGALURU - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OF DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KSAT VIDE ORDER DATED 12.01.2024 IN A.No-3510-3516/2023 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-AX SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER/S HEREIN AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Though the matter is listed for orders, the same is taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22938-DB WP No. 8326 of 2024 The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by order dated 12.01.2024 in Application Nos.3510-3516/2023 whereunder the petitioners challenge to endorsement dated 18.05.2023 intimating the petitioners that they are less meritorious than the last candidates selected in the selection process of backlog post of Second Division Assistant, is rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri. Sharan.B.T for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. V.Shiva Reddy, for respondent Nos.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. The petitioners approached the Tribunal questioning the endorsement dated 18.05.2023 where under the petitioners were informed that though they belong to age group of 29 to 40 years they are less meritorious and they are below the cut off marks for the category indicated in the said endorsement. The Tribunal after hearing the parties has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not eligible since they are less meritorious than the candidates who are called for document verification. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22938-DB WP No. 8326 of 2024 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that the petitioners are less meritorious than the candidates called for document verification, but grievance of the petitioners is that the Tribunal failed to consider other contentions raised. When once it is established that the petitioners are less meritorious than the selected or candidates who are called for document verification, the petitioners would have no right for selection. Therefore, going into other contentions would not arise since the petitioners are less meritorious than the candidates who are called for document verification. 5. We are of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK