- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12359 WP No. 106776 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106776 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI LINGARAJA K. N. S/O. K. NIJALINGAPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. ASST. MASTER, (KANNADA), SHRI BASAVESHWAR HIGH SCHOOL, CHIRATGONDU, TQ. KUDALIGI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRIYUTHS. RAMACHANDRA A MALI AND SUNIL KHOT, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY), M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-01. 3. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, KALABURAGI, KALABURAGI-585101. 4. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DEPT. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12359 WP No. 106776 of 2024 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, KUDALIGI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. 6. SHRI VEERABHADRESHWAR VIDYA SANGHA (R) UTTAGNGI, TQ. HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY-583135. 7. PRINCIPAL / HEAD MASTER, SHRI BASAVESHWAR HIGH SCHOOL, CHIRATGONDU, TQ. KUDALIGI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; R6 AND R7-NOTICE SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I. CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED IN NO.G3/KHAAPROSHA/KHA.HU.BHARTI/ANU/35/2024-25 DTD. 17-8-2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AS THE SAME BEING TOTALLY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. II. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITIES HEREIN TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER IN THE POST OF ASST. MASTER KANNADA IN THE 7TH RESPONDENT HIGH SCHOOL AND FORTHWITH SANCTION, RELEASE AND DISBURSE THE PAY SCALE/SALARY GRANTS AS ARE ADMISSIBLE TO HIM UNDER LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY. III. GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST EVEN INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12359 WP No. 106776 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Call for the relevant records and issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the impugned endorsement issued in No.G3/KhaAProsha/Kha.Hu.Bharti/Anu/35/2024- 25 dtd 17-8-2024 issued by the 4threspondent herein produced at Annexure-F as the same being totally arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable in law in the interest of justice and equity. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order in the like nature directing the respondents authorities herein to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Asst. Master Kannada in the 7th respondent high school and forthwith sanction, release and disburse the pay scale/salary grants as are admissible to him under law in accordance with law in the interest of the justice and equity. iii. Grant such other and further reliefs as are just even including the costs of this petition in the interest of the justice and equity. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.08.2024 passed by respondent No.4, Deputy Director of Education, rejecting the application for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12359 WP No. 106776 of 2024 admitting the petitioner to grant-in-aid and making payment of salary in terms of the applicable norms. 3. Respondent No.6 school was admitted to grant-in-aid on 31.03.1990. Once the school had been admitted to grant-in-aid, all the applicable rules relating thereto would be applicable to the petitioner, including the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. The petitioner claims that he was appointed on a temporary basis in the year 1996. However, on record there is no permission accorded by respondent No.6 for such appointment. A notification for appointment was issued on 14.03.2024, pursuant to which the petitioner submitted his application and recruitment having been completed, a request for admission of the post of the petitioner to grant-in-aid was made subsequently. 4. As per the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board marks card, the petitioner is stated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12359 WP No. 106776 of 2024 to have been born on 10.10.1983, i.e., by the time the notification had been published, the petitioner was more than 40 years of age. In terms of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (‘Rules of 1977’, for short), the age limit for appointment is 40 years, in the case of a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, or Category-I; 38 years in the case of a person belonging to Category 2A, 2B, 3A or 3B or other backward classes; and 35 years in the case of any other person. 5. Though the petitioner claims to be a person belonging to Category 2a hence the upper age limit which would be applicable to the petitioner would be 35 years. 6. Be that as it may, even if the upper age limit of 40 years were to be taken into consideration, by the time the notification had been published the petitioner was more than 40 years of age. Once a school is admitted - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12359 WP No. 106776 of 2024 to aid, all other applicable rules of the Government servant being applicable to the extent prescribed, it was required of respondent Nos.6 and 7 to comply with the said rules. In the present case, respondent Nos.6 and 7 have violated Section 6 of the Rules of 1977 and have recruited a person whose age was beyond the permissible limit. 7. In that background, I do not see any infirmity in the orders passed on 17.08.2024 at Annexure-F, rejecting the admission of the petitioner’s post to grant-in-aid. However, respondent Nos.6 and 7, having acted contrary to the applicable law, it would be required of respondent No.2 to take necessary action against respondent Nos.6 and 7. Hence, respondent No.2 is directed to take such action as is permissible under law against respondent Nos.6 and 7 for having recruited a person beyond the age limit prescribed under Section 6 of the Rules of 1977, within a period of four weeks from today. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12359 WP No. 106776 of 2024 8. No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52