- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8727 WP No. 102428 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 102428 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. EASHAPPA, S/O. SHARANAPPA ALLALLI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. KALLABHAVI, VENKALAKUNTA-583277, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL. 2. NAGAPPA, S/O. BASAPPA NAVI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. ALAKHANUR-591220, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. CHETAN, S/O. BALAGOUDA DODABHANGI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. PLOT NO.1573, SACHETAN NILAY, NEAR UDAY SCHOOL, RAMATERTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. ANUSHA, D/O. SATAYNARAYAN HEGDE, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. NO.05, TALGO, Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.19 10:11:58 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8727 WP No. 102428 of 2024 URKERI-581332, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UDYOGA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY, 8, M.S.B-1, 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. SHARAD V.MAGADUM, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO PUBLISH ADDITIONAL SELECTION LIST BY INCLUDING THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS BY CONSIDERING REPRESENTATIONS DATED 05.09.2023 AND 23.01.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-J TO J-2 AND N, N1 TO N-3 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8727 WP No. 102428 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to publish additional selection list by including the names of the petitioners by considering the representations dated 05.09.2023 and 23.01.2024. 2. The petitioners contend that respondent No.1 published a Notification dated 23.06.2017 inviting applications to fill up various ‘B’ and ‘C’ cadre teaching and non-teaching staff under the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2011 (‘KREIS Rules’, for short) at Morarji Desai and other residential schools in the State. The petitioners contend that respondent No.2, in terms of a communication dated 31.03.2022, directed respondent No.1 to fill up the posts by issuing an additional select list subject to the condition that such filling up shall not exceed 30% of the notified posts. The petitioners contend that as all - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8727 WP No. 102428 of 2024 the posts were not filled up, respondent No.1 by Notification dated 27.03.2023 announced an additional selection list. At that stage, petitioner No.2 submitted a representation dated 07.08.2023 to respondent No.1 to include his name in the additional select list. Respondent No.1, thereafter, issued an additional list on 17.08.2023 which, however, did not include the name of the petitioners. Respondent No.1, thereafter, directed the candidates in the additional select list to submit their willingness to report to duty. Out of the candidates so short-listed, one of them submitted his willingness to report to duty. The petitioners contend that therefore, they submitted another representation dated 14.08.2023 requesting the respondents to include their names in the additional select list. They also submitted a representation dated 16.08.2023 to the Executive Director of respondent No.3 and requested him to include their names in the additional select list. When the respondent failed to consider the grievances of the petitioners, they again made a request on 05.09.2023 and expressed their willingness to report to duty if they were selected. Respondent No.1 again issued additional select list dated 13.10.2023 in which too the names of the petitioners were not included. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8727 WP No. 102428 of 2024 Respondent No.3, vide communication dated 19.01.2024, requested respondent No.1 to publish a revised selection list taking into account the fact that 1027 candidates were absent even after the additional select list was published, and directed to fill up 100% of the candidates by publishing an additional select list. The petitioners submit that despite the communication dated 19.01.1024, respondent No.1 has not taken any positive steps to publish the additional select list to include the names of the petitioners. They contend that the petitioners are likely to lose employment opportunity as they would cross the age limit prescribed for the post and therefore, pray that suitable directions may be issued to respondent No.1 to publish the additional select list by including their names. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions and submitted that despite the directions of the respondent No.3, the respondent No.1 has failed to notify the additional select list. 4. Per contra, the writ petition is opposed orally by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 who contends that there is no provision in law to keep on issuing additional select list. He - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8727 WP No. 102428 of 2024 submits that an additional select list was issued in accordance with the prescribed Rules on 13.10.2023. He submits that cut-off mark was prescribed for the posts and that it was only those candidates who qualified, whose names were included in the additional select list published on 13.10.2023. He contends that if the petitioners were eligible, respondent No.1 would have considered and included the names of the petitioners. He, therefore, contends that the petitioners did not satisfy the eligibility criteria and therefore their names were not included in the additional select list. He also contends that the failure on the part of the candidates who names appeared in the additional select list from reporting, does not automatically confer any right upon the petitioners to compel respondent No.1 to include their names in the additional select list. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate adopted the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and submitted that the petitioners did not have any right to compel respondent No.1 to issue an additional select list. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, contended that despite the repeated attempts to fill the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8727 WP No. 102428 of 2024 posts, many posts have remained unfilled and respondent No.3 is facing difficulties in administering the institutions. He contends that respondent No.3 is taking candidates on part time basis, which has affected the quality of education, and therefore, prays that a suitable direction be issued to respondent No.1 to issue an additional select list. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2, and learned counsel for respondent No.3. 8. The Notification issued by respondent No.1 itself provided for issuance of an additional select list, which would be operated if the candidates in the select list did not report or did not express willingness to join to duty. The select list or additional select list is apparently, based on certain criteria prescribed by respondent No.3 and respondent No.1. Therefore, unless the petitioners have a right to compel respondent No.1 to issue an additional select list until the entire vacancies are exhausted, the petitioners cannot seek for a writ in the nature of mandamus to compel respondent No.1 to issue a second additional select list. If the claim of respondent No.1 that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8727 WP No. 102428 of 2024 selection of candidates was based on eligibility criteria and the performance of the candidates, the petitioners cannot compel the respondents to include them in the additional select list unless they qualify the eligibility criteria prescribed by respondent No.1. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be disposed off on the following terms: Respondent No.1 shall consider the cases of the petitioners and if they are found eligible in all respects, respondent No.1 may include the names of the petitioners in the additional select list. If, however, respondent No.1 is of the opinion that the petitioners are not eligible or that an additional select list cannot be issued, respondents Nos.1 and 3 shall proceed to fill up the vacant posts by issuing a fresh publication which shall not be later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 38 Sl No.: 4