- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7823 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. ASHARANI D/O THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: NO.57/1, GROUND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD PHASE, 1ST STAGE, GOKULA OPP: L.C.R. SCHOOL, YESHWANTHAPUR BANGALORE- 560054 PERMANENT ADDRESS: NO.11-45/30A, SB TEMPLE STREET ROAD, BEHIND MAHALAKSHMI TEMPLE, BRAMPUR, GULBARGA - 585103 2. MR. VEERABADRAPPA S/O SUBASH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT: NO 0-91, 3RD CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURAM BANGALORE - 560022 3. MR. DHARMARAJ PADAVALAGI S/O SHARANAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS PRESENT RESIDING AT: NO.27, "GOKULA NILAYA", RAKESH BUILDING, YESHWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE - 560022 Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 4. MISS. NINGAMMA D/O SIDDARAMA KOLI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS AT PRESENT RESIDING AT; NO 57/1, GROUND FLOOR, 1ST 'A' MAIN, 3RD PHASE, 1ST STAGE, GOKUL, OPP: L.C.R. SCHOOL YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560022. 5. MR. SHREEKANTH S/O SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS AT PRESENT R/O NO.161, R-LINE, CAT, SHIRASI CIRCLE, POLICE QUARTERS, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE - 560018 PERMANENT ADDRESS POST : MUSTUR DEVADURGA TALUK RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584126 6. MR. SHADAKSHARI H.M. S/O MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT: NO.13, 3RD CROSS, SRIDEVI NAGAR, DODDAGOLLATTI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560091 PERMANENT ADDRESS: NO.2, HALASABELE, AGALAKOTTE POST, MAGADI TALUK - 561101 RAMANAGAR DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560001 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, G.K.V.K. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560065 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE NOTIFICATION DATED 04.01.2013 BEARING NO.AO/RSP/ADV.KVK- SCHEMES-COLLEGE/DIR-RECTT/2012-13 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO FILL-UP VARIOUS NON-TEACHING POSTS WITHOUT NOTIFICATION OF 8% OF POSTS IDENTIFIED IN THE STATE LEVEL OFFICES OR INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PERSONS BELONGING TO HYDERABAD-KARNATAKA REGION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification bearing No. AO/RSP/Adv./KVK-Schemes-College/Dir.Rectt./2012-13 dated 04.01.2013 issued by respondent No.2 to fill-up various non- teaching posts for not indicating the reservation to persons belonging to Hyderabad - Karnataka region. The petitioners have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No.2 to re-notify the non-teaching posts by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 showing the roster point for reservation under Articles 15, 16 and 371J of the Constitution of India. 2. (i) The petitioners contend that petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6 have completed their Bachelors in Engineering, petitioner No.3 has completed I.T.I. and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 have completed Bachelor of Arts and belong to the Hyderabad - Karnataka region. They contend that after 98th Amendment to the Constitution of India, by which, special provisions in respect of Hyderabad - Karnataka region was incorporated in the Constitution of India, the State Government promulgated the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad - Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 (henceforth referred to as 'Order, 2013'), vide notification dated 06.11.2013. Later by another notification dated 29.01.2014, the Government in exercise of its power under sub-para (1) of para 4 and sub-para (1) of para 5 of the Order, 2013, framed Rules called "Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad - Karnataka Region) (Organizations of Local Cadres, Allotment and Transfer of Persons) Rules, 2013". Thereafter, it issued an Official Memorandum dated 10.04.2014 determining the balance roster points and the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 operation of the roster in respect of the local cadre allotment and transfer of local persons on local cadres. (ii) In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 issued a notification dated 04.01.2013 inviting applications to fill-up various non-teaching posts in respondent No.2 - University including 14 posts of Assistants, 1 post of Junior Engineer, 1 post of Assistant Instrumentation Engineer, 2 posts of Electrical Wiremen etc., It is contended that though the notification provided for reservation for various categories for various posts, it did not indicate reservation for local persons under Article 371J of the Constitution of India. (iii) The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) therefore, issued a Government Order on 23.02.2013 instructing all Government Departments, Corporations, Boards, Universities to stop the recruitment process until the reservation under Article 371J of the Constitution of India is appropriately finalized and separate roster is determined. Following this, another notification/corrigendum was issued by DPAR on 07.10.2013 stating inter alia that the notification issued prior to 01.01.2013 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 is not affected for not providing reservation under Article 371J(2)(b) and hence, the recruitment process may continue. The petitioners contend that the impugned notification issued by respondent No.2 was after 01.01.2013 and therefore, it could not be given effect to. In view of the aforesaid notification, the respondent No.2 did not conduct interviews and stopped the recruitment process. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.1 itself directed the respondent No.2 not to make any appointment in furtherance to the recruitment notification dated 04.01.2013. (iv) The respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 31.12.2013 to the Secretary of the respondent No.1 seeking guidance in view of the steps taken by the respondent No.2 in furtherance to the recruitment notification dated 04.01.2013. The respondent No.1 addressed letters dated 19.02.2014 and 17.12.2014 stating that para 13 of the Order, 2013 is applicable to the respondent No.2. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.2 had not concluded the selection process but it had issued a notification dated 15.02.2016 classifying various posts for local cadre and the same was yet to be approved by the respondent No.1. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 (v) The respondent No.1 in its sub-committee meeting held on 14.09.2017, insisted the respondent No.2 to implement the reservation roster. Though the respondent No.2 had classified various posts, the respondent No.1 addressed a letter dated 13.11.2017 directing the respondent No.2 to obtain approval of the classification from the Committee. This was followed by another letter of respondent No.1 dated 24.01.2018 instructing the respondent No.2 not to finalize the recruitment process without obtaining the approval from Hyderabad - Karnataka Cell. It also addressed a letter dated 04.10.2018 to the respondent No.2 to rectify the mistakes in fixing the roster. (vi) The petitioners contend that the respondent No.2 intends to operate the notification dated 04.01.2013 without issuing a fresh notification prescribing the roster points and thereby is trying to prevent the local candidates from applying. They also contend that respondent No.2 wants to fill-up the posts by appointing persons, who were already working in the University on daily wages. They contend that in view of the persistent direction issued by respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 cannot finalize the recruitment process and therefore, it is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 bound to issue a fresh notification. They contend that if a fresh notification is issued, they can also compete for the posts. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions and submitted that by introduction of Article 371J, a Special Board was established for development of Hyderabad - Karnataka region and provided for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to that region in matters of public employment, education and vocational training. Following the above, the President of India, vide notification dated 24.10.2013, promulgated an Order called "State Karnataka (Special Responsibility of Governor for Hyderabad - Karnataka Region) Order, 2013". Following this, the State Government had promulgated Order, 2013 and Rules were framed thereunder. He contends that the Parliament by notification dated 02.01.2013 inserted 98th Amendment to the Constitution of India by adding Article 371J. He therefore, contends that the respondent No.2, was bound to provide for reservation to the local persons from Hyderabad - Karnataka region. Thus, he contends that the impugned notification cannot be given effect to and the respondent No.2 is bound to issue a fresh notification. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 4. (i) The petition is opposed by respondent No.2, who contends that the petition is hit by delay and laches in as much as the petitioners have approached this Court after nearly six years from the date of issuing the recruitment notification dated 04.01.2013. It is contended that 56 posts were advertised by the notification dated 04.01.2013 and the last date for submission of the applications was 04.02.2013. It is contended that none of the petitioners had applied for any of the posts and therefore, it is claimed that they were either ineligible or uninterested in any of the posts advertised. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners cannot now seek for re-notification of the posts so as to facilitate them to apply. (ii) It is contended that pursuant to the direction of the respondent No.1 dated 04.10.2018 , a separate notification was issued by respondent No.2 on 21.12.2018 inviting applications in the prescribed form from eligible candidates for filling up Hyderabad - Karnataka local cadre posts only. It is contended that the respondent No.2 being a State funded University is bound to reserve 8% of the posts for local cadre as per clause 13 of the Government Order No.DPAR 06 PLX 2012 dated 06.11.2013. A letter was addressed by the respondent No.2 to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 the Secretary of Department of Agriculture on 26.11.2015 seeking approval for the draft notification providing 8% reservation to local cadre. Accordingly, approval was granted in concurrence with DPAR (HK Special Cell), GOK, on 14.01.2016. It is thereafter, that a notification dated 18.01.2016 was issued by the respondent No.2 reserving 8% in all cadre posts. As per the roster cycle contained in the reservation policy provided in the Government Order No.DPAR 08 SHM 95, Bangalore dated 20.06.1995, roster point No.1 has to be marked to Scheduled Caste (SC). Therefore, 5 posts were added as reserved posts for Hyderabad - Karnataka - SC reservation equivalent to 8% of the posts advertised in the recruitment notification dated 04.01.2013 resulting in a separate recruitment notification for Hyderabad - Karnataka region on 21.12.2018. (iii) In response to the above notification, 68 applications were received and were at the stage of verification of eligibility of each candidate as per the Cadre and Recruitment rules of the University. None of the petitioners in this writ petition had either applied for any of the posts or pleaded that they belong to Hyderabad - Karnataka - SC - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 category. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the notification on the ground that 8% posts were not identified for reservation under the Hyderabad - Karnataka region. (iv) It is contended that 98th Amendment to the Constitution of India was published in the Official Gazette of India on 02.01.2013. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Amendment Act, 2012 states that it shall come into force on such date the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. It is contended that the recruitment in the instant case was sanctioned by the State Government vide its letter dated 16.07.2012. The Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.2 approved the recruitment notification on 03.01.2013, which was advertised on 04.01.2013. It is contended that the Central Government had not notified the appointed date of the 98th Amendment Act, 2012 coming into force. Therefore, it is contended that there is no illegality in the recruitment notification on the ground that the reservation was not prescribed. It is contended that Article 371J per se did not provide for reservation for Hyderabad - Karnataka region in public employment. It only enabled the President of India to - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 make provision for special responsibility for the Governor of Karnataka to provide for reservation in direct recruitment and promotion under the State services or any body or organization under the State for persons belonging to Hyderabad - Karnataka region. The State of Karnataka entrusted the responsibility to the Governor under the State of Karnataka (Special Responsibility of Governor for Hyderabad - Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 as per the notification published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 24.10.2013. Therefore, it is contended that the recruitment notification dated 04.01.2013 did not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is contended that in order to make re-adjustment of the reservation, a recruitment notification dated 21.12.2018 was issued providing reservation of 8% posts for persons belonging to Hyderabad - Karnataka region. (v) It is contended that the Hon'ble Governor in exercise of the powers under the Order, 2013 referred supra, gave effect to the Order, 2013, which came into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette on 06.11.2013. Clause 13 of this Order, 2013, provided for 8% reservation in State funded Universities also. Therefore, it is contended that - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 there was no occasion for providing 8% reservation to Hyderabad - Karnataka region under the notifications prior to 06.11.2013. (vi) It is contended that pursuant to the Cabinet Sub- Committee decision in the meeting held on 14.09.2017, a letter dated 13.11.2017 was issued by the State Government to the respondent No.2. Likewise, a letter dated 24.01.2018 was received by the respondent No.2. It is contended that these letters did not refer to the Order, 2013 or Article 371J of the Constitution of India and therefore, are not relevant. It is contended that the decision of the Cabinet Sub-Committee concerning recruitment in the respondent No.2 reads as follows:- "3. ¸ÀzÀj £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉÆAqÀ ºÉÊzÁæ¨Ázï- PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ £ËPÀgÀjAzÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ, DAiÉÄÌUÀ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀzÀ°è ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉzÀÄgÁV ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ vÀgÀĪÁAiÀÄ ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀ SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.4.2014 gÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£ÀzÀAvÉ PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ªÀiÁ°£Àå ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ DqÀ½vÀ E¯ÁSÉUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. 4. ¸ÀzÀj £ÉêÀÄPÁw¬ÄAzÁUÀ ¨sÁ¢vÀUÉÆAqÀ ««zsÀ ¥ÀæªÀUÀðªÁgÀÄ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ gÉÆøÀÖgï ©AzÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹, - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 ªÀÄÄA§gÀĪÀ SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉzÀÄgÁV £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ µÀgÀvÀÛ£ÉÆß¼ÀUÉÆAqÀ ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ªÀiÁ°£Àå ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄAqÀ½UÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀj £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ DqÀ½vÀ E¯ÁSÉUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¹, ¹ÜjÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ." (vii) In compliance of the above, a bond was executed by the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.2 in favour of Principal Secretary, DPAR (Hyderabad - Karnataka Special Cell) Government of Karnataka. (viii) Out of 17 cadre posts advertised in the recruitment notification, interview was completed for 9 cadre posts long back. The Government of Karnataka vide its Order dated 23.02.2013 directed stoppage of filling up of all categories of posts in Hyderabad - Karnataka region till such time, quantum of reservation is fixed in respect of persons belonging to Hyderabad - Karnataka region. This Order referred to the Hyderabad - Karnataka region and not beyond. Therefore, it is contended that the interviews conducted in respect of 9 posts in the year 2013 cannot be disturbed. As regards 8% posts identified for candidates from Hyderabad - Karnataka region in the respondent No.2, the same is available in the notification - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 dated 18.01.2016, which was after obtaining approval from the Hyderabad - Karnataka (Special Cell), Government for Karnataka on 14.01.2016. (ix) It is contended that the Official Memorandum dated 10.04.2014 referred by the petitioners relates to balancing of roster points and operation of the roster consequent to detailed operational guidelines issued in the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointments for Hyderabad - Karnataka Region) (Organization of Local Cadre, Allotment and Transfer of Persons) Rules, 2013, which prescribes a procedure to be followed by appointing/controlling authorities while allotting local persons to the local or residual parent cadres based on their options and to initiate action to balance the roster in the next immediate appointment and operate the standard applicable roster cycle thereon continuously. Accordingly, respondent No.2 prepared the allotment of balancing of roster points and notified the same on 15.02.2016. Therefore, it is contended that the contentions urged in the writ petition that respondent No.2 issued the notification without prescribing the roster points is without any merit. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 (x) It is contended that in respect of 9 posts as per the recruitment notification dated 04.01.2013 for which interviews were not conducted, a letter was addressed to the State Government on 25.07.2018 seeking permission to conduct interview. It was assured that appropriate reservation for Hyderabad - Karnataka region would be henceforth provided. (xi) The State Government by its letter dated 04.10.2018, permitted interviews to be held for 8 cadre posts after issuing separate notification for Hyderabad - Karnataka candidates reservation posts. Following the above, respondent No.2 notified 5 more posts in respect of the candidates belonging to Hyderabad - Karnataka region on 21.12.2018 and thereby provided 8% reservation out of 56 posts notified on 04.01.2013. It is contended that the interview call letters were issued to all 344 eligible candidates to appear for the interview. Therefore, it is contended that there is no merit in the case of the petitioners that no reservation was provided to Hyderabad - Karnataka region. (xii) This apart, it is contended that if the entire notification dated 04.01.2013 is quashed, many candidates who - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 had applied for different posts are likely to lose opportunity, as they may have crossed the upper age limit. It is contended that the selection process has been completed in respect of 9 cadre posts in the year 2013 and since those persons are not arrayed as parties in this writ petition, they also may prefer writ petitions before this Court, in which event, recruitment would be further delayed causing inconvenience to the day-to-day functioning of the University. Hence, it is contended that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that when the petitioners are not applicants to the posts notified, they do not have the locus standi to challenge the notification. He also contended that following the directive of the State Government, a subsequent recruitment notification was issued on 21.12.2018 thereby providing reservation of 8% of posts to persons belonging to the Hyderabad - Karnataka region as per Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 06.11.2013. He therefore, contends that the petition is filed without verification of facts as the interest of the persons residing in Hyderabad - Karnataka region is sufficiently taken care of. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent No.1 - State supported the contentions of the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. (i) A rejoinder is filed by the petitioners to the statement of objections filed by respondent No.2 contending that the Parliament by Gazette Notification issued on 02.03.2013 brought an amendment to the Constitution of India by adding Article 371J. However, respondent No.2-University issued a Notification on 04.01.2013 calling upon to fill-up totally 56 teaching posts in various cadres like Group - A, Group - B and Group - C. The respondent No.1-Government issued an order on 23.02.2013 instructing all the appointing Authorities of Government Department, Corporation, Board and University to stop the recruitment process till the reservation under Article 371J of the Constitution of India is finalized and separate roster is fixed. (ii) It is contended that the clarificatory Notification issued on 07.10.2013 clearly stipulated that the notification to fill-up the posts issued prior to 01.01.2013 are exempt from reservation under 371J(2)(b). Hence, the posts in the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 notification issued after 01.01.2013 cannot be filled up till separate roster is fixed. The statement of objection filed by the respondent does not mention the roster fixed for the state cadre of 8% and only a letter dated 26.11.2015 is produced before this Hon'ble Court. The respondent No.1-Government has issued a letter only on 18.01.2016 to issue a notification, which has not been approved by it. (iii) It is further contended that the respondent No.1 - Government issued an Official Memorandum on 10.04.2014 issuing certain instructions and the said Government Order is required to be followed by respondent No 2. It is contended that notification dated 21.12.2018 was issued to fill up the certain posts for Hyderabad-Karnataka local cadre posts. The said notification is not as per the earlier notification dated 18.01.2016. Only 5 posts are sought to be filled-up and all the 5 posts are Group-C posts, which are reserved only for SC Category. However, in the notification dated 18.01.2016, there is 8% reservation for Group-A Senior Scale, Group-A Junior Scale, Group-B scale and Group-C scale. Hence, 8% reservation is required to be identified in all the cadres. However, in the notification dated 21.12.2018 only Group-C posts are sought to - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 be filled up. Therefore, the fixing of the roster points to the local cadre and issuance of the notification dated 21.12.2018 is not strictly in accordance with Official Memorandum dated 10.04.2014. The respondent No.1 - Government has issued series of letters to respondent No.2 on 13.11.2017, 24.01.2018 and 04.10.2018 instructing to comply the roster point for all the cadres. If the respondent No.2 really had taken the approval from the respondent No.1, there was no need to issue series of letters by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2. In spite of the same, the respondent No.2 filled up the posts, hurriedly by appointing Group-A, Group-B posts in terms of the interview conducted earlier and filled up the Hyderabad- Karnataka local cadre posts in Group-C cadres. Therefore, gross illegality or irregularity has been committed by respondent No.2 for extraneous consideration and the decision to fill up the posts without reserving the local cadre posts for Hyderabad- Karnataka Region is illegal. It is contended that in the statement of objections, it is not clearly stated as to when the date of interview was conducted by the respondent No.2 for 9 Cadre. If the interview is conducted after the issuance of the Government Order dated 23.02.2013, then such interview is - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 also illegal. It is contended that notification was issued on 04.01.2013 and last date for submitting application was 04.02.2013 and in view of the said fact, interview was conducted after the Government Order dated 23.02.2013. (iv) It is contended that the respondent No.1 - Government consistently instructed the respondent No.2 not to fill up the posts. Therefore, the respondent No.2 even after receipt of the Government instruction dated 23.12.2013, conducted the interview to fill up various posts and now the respondent No.2 intends to complete the selection process, which is per se illegal and arbitrary. (v) It is contended that the petitioners applied under Right to Information Act and it appears that note sheet has not been maintained by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 - Government has issued a letter on 13.12.2017 initiating disciplinary action against the responsible officers of University. Till now no action has been taken by respondent No.2 - University. It is contended that in the notification dated 18.01.2016, the respondent No.2 - University stated that they have fixed separate roster for each cadre. However, in the letter dated 13.11.2017, the respondent No.1 - Government - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 once again instructed to prepare the roster points and also obtained the approval from the Hyderabad-Karnataka Development Council. Inspite of the said instructions, the respondent No.2 - University neither followed the instructions, nor prepared roster points in accordance with the Government Order. Therefore, the entire notification to fill up the posts is required to be quashed, directing the University to notify all posts with proper reservation to the local cadre. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, the 98th Amendment to the Constitution of India was notified in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on 24.10.2013 i.e., after the recruitment notification dated 04.01.2013. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that the recruitment notification dated 04.01.2013 does not conform to Article 371J of the Constitution of India or to the Order, 2013 which came into effect from 24.10.2013, is misplaced. Even - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 otherwise, it is undisputed that the Government of Karnataka by its order dated 23.02.2013 had directed stoppage of filling up of all categories of posts in Hyderabad - Karnataka region, till such time the quantum of reservation is fixed in respect of persons belonging to Hyderabad - Karnataka region. Thereafter, an Official Memorandum dated 10.04.2014 was issued balancing the roster points and the operation of roster consequent to detailed operation and guidelines issued in the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointments for Hyderabad - Karnataka Region) (Organization of Local Cadre, Allotment and Transfer of Persons) Rules, 2013. Accordingly, respondent No.2 had prepared the allotment with balancing of roster points and notified them on 15.02.2016. Thereafter, it sought permission to conduct interview for the remaining 8 cadre posts which was notified on 04.01.2013. It was also stated in a letter addressed by respondent No.2 to the State Government on 25.07.2018 that appropriate reservation for Hyderabad - Karnataka region candidate would be provided. The State Government permitted interview to be held for the remaining 8 cadre posts by its letter dated 04.10.2018 after issuing separate notifications for Hyderabad - Karnataka - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:12622 WP No. 7823 of 2019 candidates reservation posts. Following the above, respondent No.2 notified 5 more posts in respect of candidates belonging to Hyderabad - Karnataka region on 21.12.2018. Unfortunately, the petitioners did not apply against the notification dated 21.12.2018. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that no reservation was provided to Hyderabad - Karnataka region candidate, is thoroughly ill-placed. Besides this, the petitioners who have not participated in the process of recruitment, cannot seek redressal of a public grievance in this writ petition. 10. Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43