- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23038 WP No. 1261 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1261 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SUNEEL KUMARA M S S/O SRINIVAS M.B AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: KANNADA /SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, 186-BC, K.R PETE TOWN, CHANARAYAPATNA R/AT MADUVINKUDI VILLAGE HARIHARAPURA , K.R PETE MANDYA - 571 605. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAVEED S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT, STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIKAS SAUDA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, AN ORGANIZATION OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 19.12.2025 A COPY IS MARKED AS ANX-J AND ETC., Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23038 WP No. 1261 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: “(a) issue Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 19-12-2025-a copy is marked as ANNEXURE-J, (d) pass any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 3. Though several contentions have been urged by the petitioner in the present petition, it is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking the very same reliefs in WP No.28157/2024, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide final order dated 18.02.2025, which reads as hereunder: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23038 WP No. 1261 of 2026 "ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel Sri.Sharandeep, for Sri.Ravikumara.B.R., learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent No.1. No notice ordered to second respondent. 2. The petitioner is before this Court praying for the following relief: "(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to direct the respondents to consider the representation letter dated 08.07.2024 (vide Annexure-L1) and to grant service weightage for the period from 01.06.2007 to 10.04.2011 (i.e., for a duration of 4 years) as a teacher. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked in second respondent-Society, in its Educational Institution as Subject Teacher, Warden as well as Principal from 2007 to 2011. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court questioning the selection list which was taken up to Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it was directed to provide service weightage to the petitioner and the persons like the petitioner in the recruitment. It is the case of the petitioner that without providing service weightage, case of the petitioner is rejected for selection and appointment as Principal of the Educational Institution run by second respondent. In that regard, petitioner said to have submitted representations to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as at Annexures-L1 and L2, both dated 08.07.2024 requesting to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23038 WP No. 1261 of 2026 consider his case for appointment as Principal or Social Science or Kannada Language Teacher. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has not taken any action on the said representation as such, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, I am of the view that writ petition suffers from delay and laches. 5. The petitioner who claims to be working as Subject Teacher, Warden and Principal of the Educational Institution run by second respondent and his case for selection as Principal or Subject Teacher or Language Teacher was rejected without providing service weightage and selection list was published on 08.07.2014. The petitioner submitted representation only in the year 2024 requesting the second respondent to award weightage and consideration of his case for selection. The selection has taken place more than 10 years back and the petitioner submitted representation only in the year 2024. The petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the case and in the matter of appointment shortest delay would disentitle relief from the Court. Moreover, the petitioner has not made any selected person as party to the petition. At this length of time, it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct consideration of representations of the petitioner for selection and appointment, which is completed in the year 2014-15. 6. Only on the ground of delay and laches, writ petition stands rejected." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23038 WP No. 1261 of 2026 4. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by this Court in WA No.474/2025 dated 27.11.2025, which reads as hereunder. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28157/2024 (S-RES) instituted by the petitioner. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition, for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner who has been working on contract basis in the respondent No.2-Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society as Subject Teacher, Warden as well as Principal from 2007 to 2011 had filed the writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 08.07.2024 and grant service weightage for the period from 01.06.2017 to 10.04.2011 i.e., for a period of four years in respect of the selection for the post of Principal for which the selection was completed way back on 08.07.2014 and the select list came to be published on the said date. 4. Some of the candidates, who intended to participate in the selection process had filed writ petition Nos.20204-20364/2011 (S-RES) claiming weightage for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23038 WP No. 1261 of 2026 services rendered by them on contract basis. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 13.07.2012 had allowed the writ petitions in part, and observed that the Principals and Teachers appointed on or after 2004-2005 were entitled for the benefit of the service weightage as specified in the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 2011, and a direction was issued to the authorities to redo the selection process by extending the service weightage to the petitioners and similarly placed candidates. 5. The said judgment and order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.5127/2012, W.A.Nos.5831-61/2012 and other connected appeals. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2013 upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and observed that the respondents in the said writ appeals would be entitled for service weightage provided they had appeared for combined competitive examinations held from 24.07.2011 to 27.07.2011. 6. Thus, the benefit of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was confined only to the petitioners who were before the Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said judgment of the Division Bench was challenged in SLP.(C).CC.No.15456/2013, which came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2013. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23038 WP No. 1261 of 2026 8. Another Writ Petition No.59175/2015 (S-RES) came to be filed by one Smt. Nagamani R, which came to be disposed off by judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 wherein the learned Single Judge rejected the stand of the respondent that petitioner though served as Hindi Teacher, had applied for the post of Social Science Teacher, therefore, she would not be entitled for service weightage. The learned Single Judge was of the view, that notification did not discriminate between the applicants, who had applied for teaching one subject though had taught some other subject. It was held that these candidates would also be entitled for weightage on the basis of the number of years of service as per the plain reading of the notification. The 2nd respondent was directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the writ petition for Social Science Teacher itself by extending service weightage for period between 02.11.2007 till the date of Notification. 9. The said judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 passed in W.P.No.59175/2015 (S-Res) was challenged by the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society in W.A.No.299/2019, wherein the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.06.2019 dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The aggrieved Educational Institution preferred SLA (C) No.1109/2020 against the said judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.299/2019, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23.02.2024. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23038 WP No. 1261 of 2026 10. From the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court, it is evident that direction was only in respect of the petitioner in the said case i.e., Smt. R.Nagamani and it was not for all the candidates, who had applied in pursuance to the advertisement. 11. The appellant in the instant appeal had filed the W.P.No.28157 in the year 2024 and the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the judgment passed in the case of Smt.R. Nagamani, at this belated stage. 12. We do not find that the impugned judgment and order dated 18.02.2025 requires an interference and therefore, we dismiss this appeal." 5. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12