- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39535 WP No. 10251 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 10251 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KASHIBAI KOLUR, D/O MALLANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC (ELC), KSRTC, CHITRADURGA DEPO, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 2. SRI. GOLLALAPPA KUMBAR, S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC (ELC), KSRTC, CHITRADURGA DEPO, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.ANIRUDH.Y.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.JAVEED.S., ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, POST BAG - 2778, KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. 2. THE DIVISION CONTROLLER, APPOINTING AUTHORITY, KSRTC CHITRADURGA DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (SMT.H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39535 WP No. 10251 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Anirudh.Y.A., counsel on behalf of Sri.Javeed.S., for the petitioners and Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for respondents 1 and 2 have appeared in person. 2. The orders dated 14.11.2024 vide Annexures-J and K are called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel for the petitioners in presenting his argument submits that the petitioners are working on full time job, 24 X 7 in all 365 days, hence the Corporation could not have removed the name of the petitioners from the Selection List. Placing reliance on Annexures-L and M, counsel argued by saying that similar Writ Petitions have been allowed by this Court and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39535 WP No. 10251 of 2025 therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the Writ Petition maybe allowed. By way of reply, counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition. She submits that the petitioners were Trainees. She argued by saying that removal of the names of the petitioners from the Selection List involves disputed question of facts, hence the petitioners cannot question the order of removal directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel therefore, submits that the Writ Petition may be dismissed. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to removal of the petitioners name from the Selection List. The petitioners contends that they were appointed as Mechanic in the establishment of the Corporation. It is pivotal to note that a show cause notice was issued on 30.10.2024 and it appears that the petitioners have replied to the same. The petitioners names were removed from the Selection List as they violated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39535 WP No. 10251 of 2025 Rule 4(9) of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982. Rule 4(9) of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 reads as under: "4. Eligibility for Appointment and disqualifications for appointment:- 1) xxxx xxxx xxxx 9) Any person who has given false or wrong information in the application will be disqualified and if appointed and found at a later date that he has given false or wrong information, his services shall be terminated." The Regulation provides for termination of services if a person has given false or wrong information. In the present case, the Corporation vide order dated 14.11.2024, removed the names of the petitioners from the Selection List. The removal of the names of the petitioners from the Selection List involves disputed questions of facts and it requires evidence, as the issue relates to furnishing of a fake marks sheet by the petitioners. The law is well settled that the disputed questions - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39535 WP No. 10251 of 2025 of fact cannot be investigated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The decisions at Annexures-L and M pertains to KPTCL & BESCOM and they are not applicable to the Corporation. Needless to say the Corporation has its own Regulations. As the issue involved in the present Writ Petition involves disputed questions of fact, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Because of rejection of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim order granted if any stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25.1