- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40160-DB RP No. 286 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND REVIEW PETITION No. 286 OF 2025 IN WRIT APPEAL No.1298/2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SYED BURHAN AHAMED, S/O. SYED NISAR AHAMED, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT PLOT No.1 AND 2, WARD No. 16, 1ST CROSS, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, VISHAL NAGAR, BALLARI 583 101. 2. SRI GAVIYAPPA G. H., S/O. G. HUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD No.1, BESIDE MASJID, VITTALPUR, BALLARI 583 115. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRITHVEESH M. K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED., A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40160-DB RP No. 286 of 2025 No.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, CORPORATE OFFICE, RACE COURSE ROAD , BENGALURU 560001. 2 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, No.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, CORPORATE OFFICE, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU 560001. 3 . THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY, SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560012, REP.BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 4. MR. GIRISH. J., S/O SRI JAYARAMLINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A No.60, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, KTG COLLEGE ROAD, SRIGANGADHAR, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BANGALORE-560091. 5. MR. SUGURAYYA SWAMI, S/O SRI NEPAL SWAMI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A No. 11-390-15/A, SHANTHVEER NAGAR, GULBARGA 585103. 6. MR. SHASHIDARA J.M., S/O SRI. KEDARASWAMY J.M., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A No. 0-114B, KHB ROAD, NEAR ANGANAVADI, RAMANAGARA BELLARY-583212. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40160-DB RP No. 286 of 2025 7. NAVEEN KUMAR S, S/O SRI. SUBBAPPA S.R., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A M.L. HALLI, MADASURLINGADAHALLI, SHIMOGA 577434. 8. MR. GOVIND RATHOD, S/O SRI. MUDAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, GADDI THANDA, DEVADURGA, RAICHUR - 584111. 9. MR. SHARANABASU SONNA, S/O SRI SHIVAPPA SONNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A 436, MASALI BK PO, TAMBA, VIJAYAPURA- 586215. 10. MR. SUNIL HOSALLI, S/O SRI BASAPPA HOSALLI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A No.131,TEACHERS COLONY, BANDIHALLI ROAD, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, BELLARI 583212. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.05.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL No.1298/2024 (ANN. - A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40160-DB RP No. 286 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) The petitioners have filed the present review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 28.05.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of appeals including Writ Appeal No.1298 of 2024(S-RES). 2. The review petitioners had preferred the said appeal impugning the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.16517 of 2024. Some of the appellants had preferred Special Leave Petition against the order dated 28.05.2025 and the SLP has since been dismissed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submits that the Court had erred in not considering the question whether fresh examination was required to be conducted with the stipulation of negative marking. He submits that, since the recruitment rules do not provide for negative marking, fresh examination containing negative marking ought - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40160-DB RP No. 286 of 2025 not to have been directed. However, the learned counsel does not dispute that the review petitioners had participated in the initial examination, which expressly stipulated negative marking, without raising any challenge to the same. The said initial examination was cancelled and fresh examination was conducted which did not contain any stipulation for negative marking. Notwithstanding the same, the examination authority had sought to evaluate the answer sheets of the candidates on the basis of the negative marking. 4. The question whether the concept of negative marking could have been introduced at the stage of evaluation, was a principal ground of challenge in several writ petitions, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 10.07.2024. The review petitioners challenged the said order on the ground that the rules of the examination cannot be changed after the examination is commenced. The said contention was accepted by this Court. 5. Concededly, no submissions were advanced in support of the contention that negative marking per se was not permissible. Essentially the review petitioners seek to advance - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40160-DB RP No. 286 of 2025 the submissions, which were not advanced before this Court in the writ appeal and at a stage after the Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the said order. 6. In the circumstances, we find no ground to review the judgment dated 28.05.2025. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as not surviving. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0