- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33018-DB WP No. 25669 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 25669 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHRUTI AGNOOR D/O. VENKATAREDDY AGNOOR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN PHYSICS GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE GADAG - 582 101 PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT NO.06, CHATAN WATER PLANT, INDUSTRIAL AREA, CHINCHOLLI CROSS, SEDAM, KALABURAGI - 585 222. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.K.PRITHVEESH, ADVOCATE AND SMT. APOORVA BASAVARADDER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33018-DB WP No. 25669 of 2025 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (COLLEGIATE EDUCATION) ROOM NO.645 A, 6TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER UNNATHA SHIKSHNA SOUDHA, SESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/06/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.6277/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.6277/2024 AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33018-DB WP No. 25669 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.6277/2024 has preferred the present petition assailing the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'). 2. The petitioner had filed an application before the Tribunal challenging the counseling conducted on 16.11.2024 and the consequential orders passed thereto. The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Physics in Government First Grade College. Pursuant to her appearance in the competitive examination conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA), she was selected. Respondent No.2 thereafter issued an Official Memorandum calling for online - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33018-DB WP No. 25669 of 2025 counseling of the appointed candidates to opt for their place of posting. 3. The petitioner opted for posting in the Government First Grade College, PG Study Centre, Gadag, and accordingly reported for duty. Subsequently, she preferred an application before the Tribunal challenging the counseling held on 16.11.2024. The Tribunal, under the impugned order, rejected the application holding that the petitioner having been appointed in the cadre of the Non-Hyderabad Karnataka Region, could not claim transfer within the Hyderabad Karnataka Region. 4. Sri. M.K. Prithveesh, learned counsel appearing along with Smt. Apoorva Basavaradder, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had applied to the post claiming the benefit of Hyderabad Karnataka Region/Kalyan Karnataka Region. However, she came to be appointed as a non-local candidate. It is contended that when the petitioner was invited for counseling to opt for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33018-DB WP No. 25669 of 2025 posting, she was not afforded the option to select a posting in the Hyderabad Karnataka Region. Under compulsion, she opted for a posting in the Non-Hyderabad Karnataka Region, albeit under protest. 4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already preferred an application seeking appointment under the Kalyan Karnataka Local Cadre, which is still pending consideration. During the pendency of such application, denial of the option to select a post in the Hyderabad Karnataka Region is stated to be illegal. It is further urged that 75% of the posts are reserved for candidates belonging to the Hyderabad Karnataka Region, and the remaining posts are earmarked for the Residual Parent Cadre. It is submitted that although postings were available for candidates of the Non-Hyderabad Karnataka Region, the option was not extended to the petitioner. Hence, the entire process of counseling is assailed as being illegal and contrary to the applicable guidelines. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33018-DB WP No. 25669 of 2025 5. Sri.B.Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner having reported to duty at the place of posting, after implementation of the order, is not entitled to question the same. Learned AGA further contends that the petitioner having been appointed as a Non-Hyderabad Karnataka Region candidate, cannot claim transfer to the Hyderabad Karnataka Region. It is thus submitted that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the reasons recorded herein below. 7. The petitioner was selected under the Non- Hyderabad Karnataka Region, and during counseling, the vacancies available for the said cadre were displayed. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33018-DB WP No. 25669 of 2025 petitioner opted for her posting in the Non-Hyderabad Karnataka Region. Though she contends that she was entitled to a posting in the Hyderabad Karnataka Region under the quota reserved for the Residual Parent Cadre, no material is placed before this Court to establish that such vacancies were available. As per the stand of the respondent-State, only the vacancies actually available are displayed during counseling. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be heard to have any grievance with regard to the non-display of vacancies in the Hyderabad Karnataka Region. 8. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner had applied under the Hyderabad Karnataka Region but was selected as a Non-Hyderabad Karnataka Region candidate is concerned, it is submitted that she has already approached the Tribunal seeking appointment under the Hyderabad Karnataka Region, which application is still pending consideration. Till such time as her appointment as a Non-Hyderabad Karnataka Region candidate subsists, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33018-DB WP No. 25669 of 2025 she cannot be extended the option of selecting postings in the Hyderabad Karnataka Region. The Tribunal, having taken note of the undisputed fact that the petitioner was selected as a Non-Hyderabad Karnataka Region candidate, was justified in holding that she is not entitled to seek a posting in the Hyderabad Karnataka Region. 9. The order of the Tribunal is well-reasoned. We find no merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner so as to warrant interference with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7