- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9077 WP No. 107746 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 107746 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: KANARA COLLEGE SOCIETY (R), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. YASHWANT V. SHANBHAG, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY, R/O. KUMBESHWAR ROAD, KUMTA, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581362. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N. PANEENDRA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ADIT CHANDANGOUDAR & SRI. HAREESHA S. NAYAK, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DHARWAD-580004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.03.2023 BEARING G.O.NO. ED 160 UGC 2022 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND IMPUGNED AMENDED ORDER BEARING NO.ED 160 UPC 2022 (E) DATED 07/12/2023 PASSED BY Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9077 WP No. 107746 of 2024 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER’S SOCIETIES’ LETTER DATED 03/05/2023 BEARING NO.03/KEKASU/SARKARI/NEMAKATI/2023-24 MADE BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND LIST OF SELECTED CANDIDATES VIDE ANNEXURE-H1 DATED 21/04/2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 bearing G.O.No.ED 160 UGC 2022 vide Annexure-G and order dated 07.12.2023 bearing No.ED 160 UPC 2022(E) vide Annexure- M, both, passed by respondent No.1. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 had issued a letter dated 25.01.2023 regarding permission for appointment of various Assistant Professor posts to the petitioner’s Arts, Science and Commerce college and that the appointment should be made in accordance with the UGC regulations. The petitioner issued a Notification in the NEWS paper on 08.02.2023 inviting application to various posts including 4 posts for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9077 WP No. 107746 of 2024 Assistant Professor, one post for Physical Education Instructor and one post for Librarian. The petitioner also issued a letter asking them to nominate subject experts for the purpose of recruitment of various Assistant Professor posts. It is further contended that in response to the said letter, the Karnataka University issued a letter dated 03.03.2023 and nominated experts on various subjects for the purpose of recruitment. The petitioner-Society passed a resolution on 16.03.2023 wherein it has decided to conduct interview on 8th, 9th and 10th of April 2023 and interview letters were issued to the prospective candidates indicating the date of interview on 08.04.2023. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.1-Government of Karnataka issued the impugned Notification modifying the eligibility criteria and directed new regulation for the purpose of recruitment to be applied to those candidates awaiting interview, thereby changing the rules and process for interview of the candidates in the midway. The petitioner-society sent a letter dated 03.05.2023 stating that the interview process was already over and the list of candidates along with the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9077 WP No. 107746 of 2024 reservation category was submitted for approval based on the earlier Notification and criteria and produced list of candidates along with the consolidated marks sheet. The 3rd respondent issued a letter dated 19.05.2023 stating that the process adopted by the petitioner in not in accordance with the Government Order dated 28.03.2023 and hence, the selection list cannot be approved. The petitioner-society made a representation dated 10.10.2023 contending that the service law does not provide a process for change of rules in the midway after the issuance of the Notification and laying down the eligibility criteria and once the recruitment process has already begun, the same cannot be changed in the interregnum period. 3. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.1 issued an amended order to the order dated 28.03.2023 stating that the amended regulations will apply to those who have made paper publication inviting candidates for recruitment. Respondent No.2 also issued a letter subsequently stating that the approval of the candidates - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9077 WP No. 107746 of 2024 made by the petitioner-society cannot be considered and sought for issuance of NEWS paper publication for fresh interview so also similar letter was issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner-society made another representation dated 20.08.2024 stating that the recruitment process initiated by them is in accordance with the UGC guidelines and to reconsider the list of selected candidates for approval. The same having not been approved and considered, the petitioner-society, aggrieved by the same, is before this Court. 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-society that it is no more res integra in service jurisprudence that, “rules of the game cannot be changed midway”. This has been clearly held by the Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. V. Rajasthan High Court and Ors.1 Several other contentions are taken with regard to the irregularity and arbitrariness in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. 1 (2013)11 SCC 94 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9077 WP No. 107746 of 2024 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondents-State sustains the impugned orders and seeks for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondents-State. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the Notification issued by the respondents, based on which, the petitioner- society issued paper publication inviting application for filling up certain posts in the petitioner-college and having completed the interview and recruitment process, submitted the list of selected candidates for approval to the respondent which was rejected in view of subsequent amendment being made by the respondent altering the rules for selection process and procedure. 8. Apparently, it is seen that the Government Orders are in violation of the well settled legal principle i.e. “rule of the game cannot be changed once the same has begun.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9077 WP No. 107746 of 2024 This principle has been upheld by the Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak’s case (supra). 9. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court and the fact that “once the game has begun, rules cannot be changed in the midway altering it.” Therefore, there is some substance in the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserving indulgence by this Court. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 28.03.2023 bearing G.O.ED 160 UPC 2022 vide Annexure-G and the impugned amended order bearing No.ED 160 UPC 2022 (E) dated 07.12.2023 vide Annexure- M, both, passed by respondent No.1 with respect to the petitioner-society is hereby quashed. The consequential relief sought may - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9077 WP No. 107746 of 2024 not require consideration in view of quashing of Annexures-G and M. iii. A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2023 bearing No.39/KeKaSo/ KhaHuBha/Sarkari/2023-24 vide Annexure-L and pass suitable orders in accordance with law, taking into consideration the quashing of Annexure-G and M, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE kmv CT-MCK