- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 38713 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATHA H G S/O HALASIDDAPPA H.G. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT MAIN ROAD, BASAVAPATTANA POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 551 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADV.) AND: Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.179, 1ST MAIN ROAD, ROOPA COMPLEX, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020 REP BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, NO.8, MSB-1, 6TH & 7TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052. 4. PRADEEP KUMAR H S/O HALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT HUBBANAHALLI VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 KUMSI POST, SHIMOGA (T) & (D)-577 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1, SRI. NAGAIAH, ADV. FOR R2, SRI. SRINIVASA.C, ADV. FOR R3 & SRI. B S MURALI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO QUSH THE FINAL SELECT LIST ON 17.03.2015 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD 25.10.2016 VIDE ANNX-A1 ISSUED BY THE R-3 HEREIN IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO NON-SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND THE SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF THE R-4 HEREIN UNDER CATEGORY 3 B RURAL FOR THE POST OF THE TEACHER AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Final Select List on 17.03.2015 (Annexure-A) issued by the 3rd respondent and also the impugned endorsement dtd.25.10.2017 (Annexure-A1) bearing No.KaVaShiSaSa/Aadalitha/HoNe/CR-01/2013- 14 issued by the respondent No.3 herein in so far as it relates to non-selection and appointment of the petitioner herein and the selection and appointment of the respondent No.4 herein under Category 3 B Rural for the post of the Teacher, in the interest of justice and equity. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction in the like nature directing the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner herein for the post of Teacher under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 category 3B, in the interest of justice and equity. iii. Pass such other order or direction deemed just and expedient in the circumstances of the case including the costs. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is a candidate for recruitment of the post of Teacher in the schools coming within the purview of respondent No.2-Society. The petitioner is a holder of B.Sc., Degree from Kuvempu University, Shivamogga. Pursuant to the notification calling for an application for the post of Teacher in respondent No.2-Society. The petitioner had applied for the post of Teacher under 3B Rural. So the petitioner and another, aggrieved by the notification dated 22.10.2011 regarding weightage to be given, approached this Court in W.P.Nos.840 and 841 of 2012. This Court, vide order dated 23.08.2012, allowed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 the writ petition and directed respondent No.2 to published the Revised Provisional Selection List of the Teachers in respondent No.2-Society, wherein under Category-3B, though the cut-off percentage was 60.40818, the case of the petitioner was not considered and he was not selected for the post of Teacher in the schools under respondent No.2-Society on the ground that the petitioner was absent for original documents verification. The petitioner, aggrieved by the Revised Provisional Selection List, approached this Court in W.P.No.16005/2015. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.01.2017 disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.2 to reconsider the application and reconsider the petitioner's representation. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16005/2015, the petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-M on 01.03.2017 and enclosed the copy of the order passed in W.P.No.16005/2015 vide Annexure-L. Respondent No.2 did not comply the directions issued by this Court in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 W.P.No.16005/2015. The petitioner filed a contempt petition in C.C.C. No.1174/2017. Meanwhile, respondent No.3 has issued impugned endorsement dated 25.10.2017 vide Annexure-H1 stating that there was a break in service of the petitioner during 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the petitioner is not eligible for the grant of weightage. The contempt proceedings were closed. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, filed this writ petition. 3. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed the separate statement of objections contending that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is 2nd round of litigation as he had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16005/2015 for the same relief. It is further contended that the petitioner is not entitled for service weightage for the academic years of 2009-10 and 2010-11. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 4. The petitioner filed the rejoinder for the statement of objections filed by the respondents denying the averments made in the statement of objections, and prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an order in the identical matter before this Court in W.A.Nos.360/2020, 650/2020, 652/2020, 675/2020 and 693/2020. He submits that the issue involved in this case is fairly covered by the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same was affirmed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ appeals and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Special Leave Appeal (C) No.24767/2023 disposed of on 22.07.2025. He submits that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the writ petition may be disposed off in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that as respondent No.4 has been selected, appointed and discharged the duty without disturbing. Hence, he submits that the writ petition may be disposed off. 9. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Similarly placed petitioners had challenged the notification dated 22.10.2011, regarding weightage to be given, approached this Court in W.P.Nos.840 and 841 of 2012. The said writ petitions were allowed. Thereafter, respondent No.2 aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.Nos.840 and 841 of 2012 and other petitioners have filed writ appeals in W.A.Nos.360/2020, 650/2020, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 652/2020, 675/2020 and 693/2020. The Division Bench vide order dated 11.08.2023 dismissed the writ appeals filed by respondent No.2 and affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. Respondent No.2 aggrieved by the order passed in the aforesaid writ appeals, preferred a Special Leave Appeal No.24767/2023. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.07.2025, dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 11. Paragraph Nos.2, 3 and 4 of Special Leave Appeal No.24764/2023, which reads as under: 2) By the order impugned, the High Court in paragraph 24, framed the question “Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in issuing a direction to provide proportionate weightage even if one year of service is not completed while awarding the marks?” which is answered in paragraphs 29, 30, 32 and 33 with following observations: “29. Admittedly, the expression “each completed year of service” is not defined under - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 the Regulations 2011. And it is also an admitted fact that the contract employees were employed only for a period of ten months on a contract basis. For the remaining two months of the year, they are not provided with any salary. This being the position, the contention of the appellants that weightage can be provided only for the “completed year of service” holds no water. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also given the fact that the respondent employees have put in a considerable length of service on being recruited in an open competitive recruitment process conducted by the State or the instrumentality of the State, strict interpretation canvassed by the is results in injustice to the employees who are otherwise qualified to be regularised in service. The order of the learned single judge directing proportionate weightage only entitles certain percentage of marks to be taken into consideration to process the claim for regularisation of those candidates who have put in some service after being selected in a competitive selection process. It does not affect or take away the rights of the persons who have put in more years of service. 30. Assuming that all the contesting respondents were parties in previous writ petitions - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 and writ appeals, the Co Ordinate bench of this court in the previous round of litigation in Writ Appeal No. 5127 of 2012 has concluded that the entry into service is not a back door entry so far as the petitioners are concerned. The Court has given a finding that the candidates were qualified and eligible to be appointed as teachers and has dismissed the appeal filed by the Society. It is also observed in the said order that “The appellant society as far as possible, try to accommodate the respondents, if, after giving service weightage they are selected without disturbing the candidates who are already selected and appointed”. The order passed in writ appeal is confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 09.09.2013 in SLP No. 30854/2013. 32. The ambiguity in the language employed in not correctly defining the completed year, particularly in a situation where the employees are paid salary only for 10 months, learned single Judge is justified in holding that the petitioners should be given a proportionate weightage. 33. It is also required to be noticed that all the institutions run by the appellant society are admitted to grant aid by the State. Thus, the salaries of the employees to be regularised in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 terms of the impugned order are to be paid by the State. The State has not preferred any appeal against the impugned order and has accepted the order.” As such the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench. 3) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the reasonings as given by the learned Single Judge affirmed by the Division Bench appears to be plausible to extend the proportionate benefit to the candidates. By allowing proportionate benefit every candidate shall be benefited and no one is going to be affected adversely. On the contrary, they will get the proportionate percentage of marks following the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 2011. 4) In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the present special leave petitions in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 Accordingly, the special leave petitions are dismissed. 12. The Hon’ble Apex court recorded that the learned Single Judge was right in issuing the direction to provide proportionate weightage even one year of service is not completed while awarding the marks. The issue involved in the present case is fairly covered by the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY V/S SHAMBULING PTAIL AND OTHERS in SLA(C)NO.24767/2023, disposed of on 22.07.2025. 13. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed off in terms of the order passed in SLA(C).No.24767/2023. 14. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within eight - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43790 WP No. 38713 of 2018 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. 15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB