- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10174-DB WP No. 105640 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 105640 OF 2025 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SHILPA MALLAPPA MUNAVALLI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. DSQ NO.7, SUBHASH NAGAR, TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI-590016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE PRESIDENT VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, DIRECT RECRUITMENT SELECTION AUTHORITY AND COLLECTOR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR-581301. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR-581301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI BENCH IN APPLICATION NO.13371/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW, AND GRANT THE RELIEF AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE APPLICATION NO.13371/2024 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THERIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10174-DB WP No. 105640 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present petition is filed by the applicant before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the Tribunal, whereby, the Tribunal had rejected the application and refused to set aside the endorsement dated 09.09.2024. 2. It is to be noticed that the endorsement dated 09.09.2024 at Annexure-A9 was to the effect that the claim of the applicant for reservation under Rule 9 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short, ‘Rules, 1977’) could not be considered as the applicant was not wholly dependant on her father. 3. It must be noticed that the Tribunal by a detailed order, has rejected the application while specifically recording a finding that what was required to be looked into was dependency of the applicant on her father and that not having been established or substantiated by documents to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10174-DB WP No. 105640 of 2025 show that the applicant was dependent on her father and not on her husband as asserted, the Tribunal has rejected the application. The relevant observations of the Tribunal as regards such aspect is at paragraph No.10 which is extracted below: “10. The main issue for consideration in this case is whether the applicant is dependant on her father and therefore can the benefit of reservation under Ex-serviceman quota as per explanation to Rule 9 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, can be granted. The issue of extension of benefit to married or unmarried daughter per se is secondary. Therefore, in the instant case, as rightly contended by the learned AGA, the applicant has not substantiated her claim that she is fully dependant on her father, after her marriage also. Though she claims that she is dependant on her father due to serious illness of her husband, but the claim has remained only as a claim without any substance.” 4. Rule 9 of Rules, 1977 reads as follows: “9. Provision for Ex-serviceman [and Persons with bench mark disability)]-(1) Notwithstanding anything - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10174-DB WP No. 105640 of 2025 contained in rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post, if in such rules of recruitment direct recruitment is prescribed as one of the methods of recruitment, [ten per cent of vacancies set apart for that method in each of the category of general merit, scheduled caste and schedule tribes and each of the categories among other backward classes shall be reserved for, and] shall be filled by direct recruitment from among ex-servicemen and members of the families of persons who, while serving in the-Armed Forces of the Union, were either killed or permanently disabled.” Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-rule “members of the family” means the wife or husband, as the case may be, and children and step children wholly dependant on the person who served in the Armed Forces of the Union.” 5. It is clear that Rule 9 relates to reservation as regards family members of Ex-servicemen. Such reservation was for the benefit of children wholly dependent on the person who served in the Armed Forces of the Union. 6. The endorsement at Annexure-A9 was on the specific ground that the applicant was not wholly dependant on her father as she was married. It is also relevant to note - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10174-DB WP No. 105640 of 2025 that after the application of the applicant claiming reservation benefits under Rule 9, the employer had issued a notice at Annexure-A6 calling upon the applicant to demonstrate along with documents and written submission as regards her being wholly dependant on her father. In response to the notice at Annexure-A6, though a detailed reply was given at Annexure-A7, it is to be noticed that Annexure-A7 is not backed by any documents. When the applicant seeks benefit of reservation, which is available only to those who are wholly dependant on the father in the absence of documents evidencing dependency, the endorsement at Annexure-A9 is rightly given and the order of the Tribunal, which is a reasoned order, has adverted to such aspect of dependency, as is noticed from the observations at paragraph No.10 of the order. 7. While the counsel for the applicant submits that there are documents to indicate dependency, however, noticing that the endorsement at Annexure-A9 was issued on 09.09.2024, it would not be appropriate at this point of time in these proceedings to call upon the employer to reconsider - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10174-DB WP No. 105640 of 2025 in light of lapse of time. Even otherwise, we find that the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be upsetted in the present proceedings merely, on the basis of equity while noticing that if reservation is claimed as a beneficial right, there has to be strict entitlement and such entitlement is not proved by virtue of lacuna in the reply at Annexure-A7. 8. In view of the above, the petition is rejected. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19.