- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45868-DB WP No. 13757 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 13757 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: MR SHAILESH @ SHAILESH KRISHNA S/O SHIVARAM SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT 7-3-373, B.A.SHETTY COMPOUND, BOLOOR KATTE, NEAR JARANDYA TEMPLE, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA-575003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.MALLAIAH M.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45868-DB WP No. 13757 of 2024 ROOM NO. 645 A, 6TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001. 2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY, 18TH CROSS ROAD, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560012. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA.,AGA FOR R1 & R3; SRI. N.K. RAMESH., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION CALLING FOR THE RECORDS IN APPLICATION No. 1342/2023 FROM THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AND THEREAFTER, QUASH AND SET - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45868-DB WP No. 13757 of 2024 ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.01.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No. 1342/2023 AND B. ISSUE NECESSARY WRIT TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER No. ED/KEA/ADMN/CF- 19/2020-21 (RPC) DATED 30.09.2021, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No. 1, PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-F OR C. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT No. 1 TO RESERVE 3 ADDITIONAL SEATS IN ANNEXURE-F FOR THE GM-PH CATEGORY FOR THE 2021 RECRUITMENT NOTIFICATION OR D. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT No. 1 TO ISSUE A FRESH LIST INCLUDING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF 30.09.2021. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45868-DB WP No. 13757 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner has a Bachelor's degree in English Literature and a Master's degree in Psychology. The petitioner’s Master's degree in English Literature is in the year 2019. The petitioner has participated in the selection process to fill up the posts of 'the Assistant Professors' with the Government First Grade Colleges, and in filing his application in No.1342/2023 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal'] the petitioner has called in question the Selection Notification dated 30.09.2021 and the Final Selection List dated 03.03.2023. 2. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 has rejected the application on two grounds: [a] that the petitioner's pleadings does not substantiate his case that the respondents have not carried forward the unfilled seats reserved for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45868-DB WP No. 13757 of 2024 persons with 'physically handicap' and [b] that with the selection process being completed, the petitioner cannot successfully maintain the application unless selected candidates are also arrayed as parties. Sri Mallaiah M R, the learned counsel on record for the petitioner, Sri N K Ramesh, the learned counsel for the Karnataka Examination Authority, and Sri Vikas Rojipura, a learned Additional Government Advocate, for the other respondents, are heard for final disposal. 3. Sri N K Ramesh and Sri Vikas Rojipura submit that the Tribunal's reasoning on the maintainability of the petitioner's application is unexceptionable in the light of the two circumstances, and the learned counsels submit that [i] the petitioner has participated in the selection without calling in question the decision to notify the posts as mentioned in such selection Notification and [ii] it is settled law that a person who has participated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45868-DB WP No. 13757 of 2024 in the selection process cannot at a later stage challenge the very selection notification [iii] the petitioner, who cannot dispute that the application is filed after the selection is complete, cannot maintain his application [notwithstanding the grounds that would be] unless all the selected candidates are impleaded lest there is a decision without extending them an opportunity. Sri Mallaiah M R is heard in the light of these submissions, which affect the very maintainability of the petitioner's application with the Tribunal. 4. This Court must observe that these are salient and must apply in full force in the present case, and these would justify rejection of the writ petition. Sri Mallaiah M R, Sri N K Ramesh and Sri Vikas Rojipura, have been heard on the merits of the petitioner's grievance with the reservation for the candidates who 'Physically handicapped/ with disabilities', and the petitioner has stated thus: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45868-DB WP No. 13757 of 2024 "In the said recruitment year, 222 seats were allocated for English subjects. Out of the 222 seats reserved for English, 7 seats were reserved for persons with disabilities. Out of 7 seats reserved for persons with disabilities, 4 were reserved for GM-PH [General Merit - Physical Handicapped] candidates and 3 were reserved for candidates belonging to different categories of PH [Physical Handicapped] candidates. Subsequent to the notification, 4 candidates were selected against GM-PH category who belong to Locomotor, blind/low vision and GM-PH category in the examination of disability respectively. Out of the 4 candidates who were eligible for the seat of GM-PH, 3 candidates scored extremely well and ranked above the last selected candidates in the General merit. As such, they were not selected against the seats reserved under GM-PH candidates." 5. Sri Mallaiah M R submits that in the selection under the 2015 Notification those who had applied under the 'Physically Handicapped' category have been selected on merits under the 'General Merit' category and that because those persons have - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45868-DB WP No. 13757 of 2024 been selected under the 'General Merit' category, there could not have been any appointment as against posts reserved for the 'Physically Handicapped' and such posts should have been carried forward to be notified in the year 2001. Sri N K Ramesh and Sri Vikas Rojipura point out that the Tribunal has rightly considered the position of law as exposited by the Apex Court in 'Sadhana Singh Dangi and Others v Pinki Asati and Others'1 and 'Union of India v Pankaj Kumar Srivastava'2. 6. The learned counsels canvass that factually only those with 'physical disablement' have been appointed under such category. This Court is of the view that if the authorities in filling up the posts under the 2015 Notification have accommodated those who have claimed reservation under the 'Physically Handicapped' category on their own merit 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1329 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1647 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45868-DB WP No. 13757 of 2024 in that category, there would be no reason for interference on the ground now canvassed. As such, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M. NADAF) JUDGE AN/-