- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB WP No. 20702 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.20702 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: 1. KUM. SVARA PREMA ANAND D/O SURG CAPT P ANAND (RETD), NEET UG-2025 ROLL NO. 2723104097, AGED 18 YEARS, ADDRESS # OPP. DHARMARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE RAJ BHAVI CROSS, VARTHUR, BENGALURU 560 087. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: SRI GURUKRUPA, 1ST FLOOR, TG EXTENSION, 4TH CROSS 1ST MAIN, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE - 562 114. 2. SRI. ANAND P. S/O PICHANNA, AGED 56 YEARS, ADDRESS # OPP. DHARMARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE, RAJ BHAVI CROSS, VARTHUR, BENGALURU - 560 087. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: SRI GURUKRUPA, 1ST FLOOR, TG EXTENSION, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE - 562 114. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB WP No. 20702 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 000 EMAIL - dmekarnataka@yahoo.com 3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY, 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BENGALURU 560 012. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. EMAIL - keaauthority-ka@nic.in …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. N.K.RAMESH FOR R3;) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRITS/ORDERS, DECLARING THAT THE REQUIREMENT IN CLAUSE 13 FOUND AT PAG ENO.48 OF THE E- INFORMATION BULLETIN 2025 ISSUED BY KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY (RESPONDENT NO.3) VIDE ANNEXURE-J i.e., PROVIDED THAT THE CANDIDATE SHOULD HAVE STUDIED IN KARNATAKA FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FROM 1ST STANDARD TO QUALIFYING EXAM, AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR AVAILING THE LINGUISTIC MINORITY RESERVATION IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND STRIKE DOWN THE SAME, AND FURTHER ORDER THE SAME TO BE INAPPLICABLE TO PETITIONER NO.1 AS HER FATHER/PETITIONER NO.2 WAS SERVING IN THE INDIAN NAVY AND POSTED OUTSIDE STATE OF KARNATAKA DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD OF THE STUDY OF PETITIONER NO.1 FROM 1ST STANDARD TO 10TH STANDARD AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB WP No. 20702 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned senior counsel along with Sri.Ganapathi Bhat, appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri.N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The substantial prayers in this writ petition are as under:- "a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writs/orders, declaring that the requirement in Clause 13 found at page no.48 of the E-Information Bulletin 2025 issued by Karnataka Examinations Authority (Respondent No.3) vide Annexure-J i.e "provided that the candidate should have - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB WP No. 20702 of 2025 studied in Karnataka for a period of Ten Years from 1st Standard to qualifying exam", as a condition precedent for availing the Linguistic Minority reservation is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and strike down the same; and further order the same to be inapplicable to Petitioner No.1 as her father/Petitioner No.2 was serving in the Indian Navy and posted outside State of Karnataka during the relevant period of the study of Petitioner no.1 from 1st Standard to 10th Standard; b) Issue appropriate Writs/orders, declaring that the condition No.2 in the Government Order No.ED 165 Mahiti 2018 dated 12/09/2018 issued by Respondent No.1 vide Annexure 'J1' is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and strike down the same; and further order the same to be inapplicable to the Petitioner No.1 as her father/Petitioner No.2 was serving in the Indian Navy and posted outside State of Karnataka during the relevant period of the study of Petitioner no.1 from 1st Standard to 10th Standard." 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is the daughter - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB WP No. 20702 of 2025 of an ex-serviceman (second petitioner) who is domiciled in Karnataka, who had been posted outside the State for several years during her education. The candidate therefore, had to accompany her family and was educated in several places through out the country, but outside Karnataka. However, she completed her 11th and 12th standard in Karnataka. 4. It is submitted that she belongs to the Tamil linguistic minority and is domiciled in Karnataka. However, on account of the provisions contained in the prospectus, which reads as under:- "Linquistic Minority: (for Medical and Dental only) • Linguistic Minority reservation is applicable for Tamil, Telugu, Kodava & Tulu of Karnataka Candidates and domicile candidates only; provided, • He/she should have studied in Karnataka for a period of Ten years from 1st Standard to qualifying exam and passed SSLC/10th or 2nd PUC/12th from Karnataka state." the petitioner is unable to apply in the State minority quota for private educational institutions. It is submitted - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB WP No. 20702 of 2025 that the petitioner has completed her 12th examination from Karnataka. However, she has not studied for 10 years from 1st standard to the qualifying examination in Karnataka. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Meenakshi Malik v. University of Delhi and others reported in (1989)3 SCC 112 and Vansh S/o. Prakash Dolas v. Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 342, and submits that such prescriptions with regard to specific years of study in the State insofar as ex-servicemen and Government employees are concerned have been held to be arbitrary and discriminatory by the Apex Court. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners had been making representations and requests before the competent authorities as evidenced by Annexures-‘L’, ‘L1’ and ‘L2’ on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB WP No. 20702 of 2025 noticing the discrepancy, but no action has been taken thereon. 6. The learned senior counsel also drew our attention to a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.12121/2022 decided on 22.08.2022 to contend that the State had been directed to consider the relaxation of minimum education criteria in respect of the wards of Government employees. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the KEA have filed detailed objection on record stating as follows: "1. x x x x x 2. It is true that the 1st Petitioner had registered her name in Karnataka Examinations Authority for the academic year NEET UG-2025-26 with All India NEET Rank 735064 and has claimed a seat under General category and also under Spl. Category of Ex. Defense as is evident in Annexure-K-1. On verification of documents she was found not eligible to select a seat under the Tamil Linguistic Minority quota as evident from Annexure-K2 as she does not fulfill the criteria for completion of study of 10 years in State of Karnataka. The eligibility criteria prescribed to claim a seat by a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB WP No. 20702 of 2025 Linguistic Minority student seeking admission to a specified Linguistic Minority Institution as per the Govt. Orders dated 12/09/2018 vide Annexures J-1. This Respondent being a Counselling Agency has prescribed the said criteria in the Brochure which is being followed since then. The Petitioner cannot be exempted from adhering to the same. 3. The Petitioner is endeavouring to take sustenance from the Judgments rendered by the Apex Court produced at Annexures N & P. The ratio of the judgments are inapplicable to the case of the Petitioner. In the said judgments, the student therein was denied a seat for admission in the State Quota seats. In the instant case, the Petitioner if satisfies any of the eligibility clauses ‘e, f, g and h’ meant for the wards of Defense and Ex-Defense personnel, she is entitled to be considered for selection of a Govt. seat in the said category. The seats in a Minority Institution being Categorized as 'P' seats and it is primarily meant for and filled up by the students belonging to specific Linguistic Minorities in the State for which the State Govt. has prescribed the norms. This prescription is based on the dictum rendered by the Apex Court in the case of PA Inamdar Vs State of Maharashtra - (2005) 6 SCC 537. If such prescriptions are not regulated and adhered to, there is all the chance of depriving the State Linguistic Minority Students from getting admission to a Linguistic Minority Institution to which the student belongs." - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB WP No. 20702 of 2025 8. The learned AGA has also raised arguments before us and has also placed reliance on the Judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mylepalle Vaibhavi vs. Karnataka Examinations Authority, rep. by its Executive Director and Others reported in ILR 2018 KAR 3707. 9. In support of his contentions, he contends that the identical provision has already been upheld by this Court. It is contended that the first petitioner was a candidate for NEET Examinations in the previous year also and was fully aware of the prescriptions in the prospectus. Though the prospectus is dated 22.01.2025, no challenge has been raised before this Court till the last possible moment when the last date for submission of application is on 17.07.2025. 10. The learned AGA also places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Binoy Viswam vs. Union of India and others reported in (2017) 7 SCC 59 in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB WP No. 20702 of 2025 support of his contention that a prescription in the prospectus which would be equally applicable to all similarly situated candidates cannot be waived or relaxed in respect of the first petitioner alone. 11. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the Apex Court in the Judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was considering the question whether children of serving officers of the of the Government could be required to complete their qualifying examination within the State to entitle them for consideration as State candidates. However, a co-equal Bench of this Court has considered a challenge to the criteria of ten years of study in Karnataka for availing the benefit of linguistic minority in Karnataka and has come to the conclusion that the said prescription is valid. Further, we also notice that the prospectus under challenge was one issued in January 2025 and the writ petitioner was a person who had participated in the selection in the previous year as well. In case the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB WP No. 20702 of 2025 condition is relaxed as sought for by the petitioner, there would be several other persons who would be entitled to the benefit who are unaware of this challenge and would not have made an application in the linguistic minority quota because of the prescription in the prospectus. 12. Though the learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the rule of parity will not extend to persons who have not approached the Court, we are of the opinion that in the matter of centralized selection to medical seats, where merit alone is expected to be the criteria, the decisions relied on by the learned senior counsel which are in the realm of Service Law would not apply. Any relaxation would have to be equally made applicable to all eligible candidates and permitting one candidate alone to avail of the benefit by relaxing the condition would amount to giving the rule of merit a go- by. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB WP No. 20702 of 2025 13. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prayer sought in the petition cannot be granted. 14. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47