- 1 - RP No. 479 of 2025 Reserved on : 11.03.2026 Pronounced on : 09.04.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND REVIEW PETITION No. 479 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION No.27667 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. DODDAHANUMANTHARAYAPPA, S/O SRI SANJEEVAPPA (LATE), AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS, SANSKRIT LITERATURE ASST., (RETD.), SREE CHAMARAJENDRA SANSKRIT COLLEGE, CHAMARAJAPETE, BANGALORE 560018. (R/AT CHIKKAPALANA HALLI, IRAKASNADRA COLONY POST, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT), …PETITIONER (BY SRI L. SIDDAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 6TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - RP No. 479 of 2025 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPT. OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.08.2025, PASSED IN WP 27667/2023 (S-KSAT) AND ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri L. Siddaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents-authorities. 2. The writ petitioner in W.P. No.27667/2023 (S-KSAT) has filed the present review petition seeking review of the order dated 04.08.2025. The petitioner had filed an application before the Tribunal seeking one additional increment under Rule 6 of - 3 - RP No. 479 of 2025 the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examination) Rules, 1974, as well as TBA benefits. Such a claim was made after a lapse of 30 to 32 years. The Tribunal rejected the said application on the ground of delay and laches. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P. No.27667/2023 before this Court challenging the said order. This Court, by order dated 04.08.2025, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 3. Sri L. Siddaiah, learned counsel for the review petitioner, submits that the Tribunal, by order dated 02.09.2021 in Application No.1047/2021, directed the petitioner to submit a representation and the respondent authorities to consider the said representation in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the application was condoned by the Tribunal in its earlier order dated 02.09.2021. It is therefore contended that, in view of the condonation of delay and the direction issued to the respondent authorities to consider the representation, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application on the ground of delay and laches. 4. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that there is no error or mistake apparent on - 4 - RP No. 479 of 2025 the face of the record warranting review of the earlier order of this Court. Accordingly, he submits that the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Considered the submissions made on either side and perused the papers. 6. The application was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of delay and laches, as the cause of action sought to be brought before the Tribunal was 30 to 32 years old. The Tribunal rejected the application on the said ground of delay and laches. This Court also dismissed the writ petition on the same ground. 7. The multiple representations and the direction issued by the Tribunal to consider the representations would not answer the inordinate delay of 30 to 32 years. Subsequent or a series of representations cannot be a ground to explain such delay. The grounds urged by the learned counsel for the review petitioner cannot be sustained. Moreover, we find no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in review. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. - 5 - RP No. 479 of 2025 In view of the dismissal of the review petition, I.A. No.1/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 58 days in preferring the review petition also stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV