- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3419 WP No. 28430 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.28430 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. PUSHPAVATHI D/O MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, LAB TECHNICIAN AT HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, (A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES ACT, 1961), RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS, DR. LOHIA ROAD, VIDHYANAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201. …PETITIONER [BY SMT. REENA R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI, ADVOCATE] AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, (MEDICAL EDUCATION), VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3419 WP No. 28430 of 2023 2. THE HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, (A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES ACT, 1961) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND MEMBER SECRETARY, HASSAN - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (THROUGH VC)] THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.04.2023 BEARING NO. HIMS/C(5)/04/2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3419 WP No. 28430 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Heard Smt.Reena.R., learned counsel for Sri. Hanumanthappa Haravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.J.Eshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Smt.Sumana Baliga for respondent No.2 through video conference. Perused the writ petition papers. 2. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash Endorsement bearing No.HIMS/C(5)/04/2021-22 dated 15.04.2023 (Annexure-G), wherein the petitioner is informed that she was not within the age limit prescribed for appointment as 'Lab Technician' in pursuance to the Notification dated 15.01.2009 under Category III-A as she was 42 years of age as against maximum age prescribed at 38 years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially selected and thereafter, the petitioner was dropped from the Selection List. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3419 WP No. 28430 of 2023 petitioner had approached this Court and this Court in its order dated 01.03.2023 in W.P.No.20353/2021 directed to consider the letter dated 01.02.2021 issued by respondent No.1-State Government and to pass appropriate orders. Despite the same, the respondents have not acted upon and not re-appointed the petitioner as Lab Technician. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner would be entitled for re-appointment as Lab Technician like other 29 re-appointments made by respondent No.2-Institute. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Smt. Sumana Baliga for respondent No.2 would submit that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as Lab Technician as she was age barred. It is submitted that the petitioner had claimed reservation under III-A Category and for the said category, maximum age limit is 38 years but the petitioner was 42 years as on the last date of submitting application in pursuance to the Notification dated 15.01.2009. Therefore, she submits that the petitioner's case was not considered for appointment as Lab Technician. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot compare her case - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3419 WP No. 28430 of 2023 with other 29 candidates since she is not eligible for appointment. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief as prayed in the writ petition. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was aged 42 years as on the last date of submitting application for the post of Lab Technician in pursuance to the Notification dated 15.01.2009, inviting applications to fill up the post of Lab Technician. The petitioner had claimed reservation under category III-A and for the said category, the maximum age was 38 years. The petitioner as stated above, was aged 42 years as on the last date of submitting application and she was not eligible for the post of Lab Technician, which is made clear in the impugned Endorsement. When a person is not qualified or not eligible in terms of the Notification calling application, the said candidate would - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3419 WP No. 28430 of 2023 not get any right to seek consideration of his/her case for appointment and she cannot compare her case with any other person. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4