- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 13294 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SOMAYYA KAMBI, S/O.SHIVALINGAYYA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. R/A HIREBAGEWADI, BELAGAVI-591109. KARNATAKA 2. SOMAYYA, S/O. MUDAKAYYA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. R/A CHIVATAGUNDI, BAILWAD, BAILHONGAL-591102. KARNATAKA 3. VIKRAM NAIKARHIRE, S/O.CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A BAGEWADIHIRE, BAGEWADI, BELAGAVI-591109. KARNATAKA 4. JOTIBA KADOLKAR, S/O.MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A AGASAGE, BELAGAVI-591143. KARNATAKA 5. SHIVANAND D. KENCHANNAVAR, Digitally signed by JYOTHI MANJUNATH Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 S/O.DUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A KOCHARI, HUKKERI-591340. KARNATAKA 6. BASAPPA CHANDARAGI, S/O.RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A NAYANAGAR, BAILHONGAL-591102. KARNATAKA 7. SAGAR PATIL, S/O.BALIRAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A HANDI VILLAGE, YADOGA POST, HALIYAL0581329.- KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR NARAYAN HEGDE., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPT. BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANGER (HR), LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, 3RD FLOOR, NEW ANNEXE BUILDING, NO.65, ST. MARK'S ROAD, LHO CAMPUS, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION / ORDER DATED 14/03/2025 I AND ONE MORE COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED 05/04/2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK WHICH SI PRODUCED AT ANNX-E TO E6 AND G TO G6., AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, 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: “i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing the impugned communication / order dated 14.03.2025 1 and one more communication letter dated 05.04.2025 issued by the Respondent Bank which is produced at Annexure-E to E6 and G to G6 ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, direction or any other appropriate order directing the Respondent Bank to give order of appointment to the petitioners as Bank Guards in permanent vacancies in the Respondent Bank by conducting the final process of selection of medical examination of the Petitioners by the Respondent Bank; AND iii) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit just in the Circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice and equity.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the previous round of litigation in WP No.9909/2023, this Court directed the respondent - State Bank of India to consider the list of the names forwarded by the Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement pursuant to its request dated 11.07.2023 in which the names of the petitioners are found and only after it considers the case of the petitioners for recruitment, the SBI was directed to seek for a fresh list of names from respondent No.2 and proceed further in accordance with law. 3. In pursuance of the said order passed by this Court in WP No.9909/2023 dated 12.09.2023, the respondent No.1 - Bank conducted a physical test on 27.12.2023, but did not declare the marks and selected 9 of the 21 petitioners, who were the writ petitioners in the earlier round of litigation. But declined to select the petitioners herein. 4. As a result of which, the petitioner approached this Court in WP No.2816/2024, which was disposed of vide final Order dated 03.02.2025 directing the respondent - Bank to communicate the result of the recruitment in question together with the reasons for non selection, in the event the petitioners are not selected. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court in WP.No.2816/2024 dated 03.02.2025, respondent - Bank issued the impugned communication at Annexures E, E1 to E6 followed by the subsequent impugned communication at Annexures G, G1 to G6 intimating the petitioners that their request for appointment cannot be considered on the ground that they had not qualified in the selection process since the mark secured by them was below the cut off of 98 as prescribed by the respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned communications at Annexure E, E1 to E6, and the G, G1 to G6, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 7. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in WP No.9909/2023, in order to point out that this Court has recorded a finding that the names of the petitioners had been forwarded by the Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement and also they had undergone the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 physical test successfully and as such, the question of the respondents coming to the conclusion that the petitioners had secured marks which has been well below the cut off score of 98 is illegal and arbitrary and the impugned communications deserves to be quashed. 8. It is also submitted that though the respondent purport to state in the impugned communications that the cut off marks is 98, 'the said cut off marks of 98', is neither found in the notification nor the standard operating procedure maintained by the respondents and the impugned communication deserved to be quashed on this ground also and the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent - Bank would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the orders passed by this Court in the earlier - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 round of litigation in WP.No.9909/2023 and WP.No.2816/2024 held as under: In WP.No.9909/2023: "ORDER 1. The petitioners are all Ex-servicemen, who are aggrieved by the recruitment Notification dated 08.12.2022, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-C. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent had earlier issued a recruitment Notification dated 29.09.2021 vide Annexure-A and this Notification was for recruiting Ex-servicemen in respect of permanent vacancies as Bank Guards at different branches and the respondent No.1 - State Bank of India (for short, ‘SBI’) requested respondent No.2 - Department of SAINIK Welfare and Resettlement, to forward at least 2420 Ex- servicemen of younger age profile for consideration. 3. It is their case that pursuant to the said request, the respondent No.2 did forward a list of names and the petitioners' names were included in the said list. 4. It is their further case that pursuant to the said list being forwarded by the respondent No.2, SBI issued notices calling upon them to appear for a physical test and all of them appeared for the physical test and were successful in the said physical test. It is contended that instead of issuing an appointment order, the SBI has now - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 proceeded to issue a fresh recruitment Notification vide Annexure-C. 5. The SBI has filed statement of objections in which it is stated as follows, as the reason for canceling the earlier notification and calling for a fresh list : “7. It is submitted that as regards the recruitment of Bank guards for the financial year 2021-22, the Director, Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement, Bengaluru forwarded a list of 5501 ex-servicemen. The Scrutiny Committee constituted by the Bank shortlisted the candidates in the proportion of 1:5 vacancy as per the criteria mentioned in the SOP. The Screening Committee shortlisted 605 candidates. The physical test and physical aptitude test were conducted from 14.02.2022 to 18.02.2022. The candidates who qualified in the physical test were permitted to attend the document verification. During the verification of the documents before finalizing the select list, the respondent Bank came to know that the below mentioned candidates who were otherwise not eligible as per the norms of the Bank/SOP were added in the list. Badge No. Date of physical test Army No. Name Remarks 135 15.02.2022 1514611OP Sri.Poovaiah D.B. Aged about 42 years found beyond cutoff age for shortlisting during re- verification of documents - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 84 14.02.2022 7243011L Sri.Santosh Renake Candidate is from RVC/NA category as per date provided by State Sainik Board which is not into fighting arms. On further scrutiny, it was found that the said 2 names were added extraneousy. In view of the above discrepancies, the respondent Bank placed a note before the Deputy General Manager, who has ordered for cancellation of entire recruitment process for the financial year 2021-22 and also to initiate detailed investigation in this regard. A detailed investigation was also conducted and during the investigation, the discrepancies stated above was confirmed. A copy of the note placed before the competent authority for canceling the recruitment process is annexed hereto as Annexure-R2. 8. After cancellation of the recruitment process for the financial year 2021-22, the respondent Bank initiated steps to recruit the armed guards during the year 2022-23. The respondent Bank sent a letter dated 08.12.2022 to the Director, Department of Sainik welfare and Resettlement, Bengaluru, stating therein that the Bank propose to reinitiate the recruitment process and requested the Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement to forward the names of 2420 ex-servicemen on the terms and conditions mentioned therein (Annexure-C to the WP). After receipt of the list of candidates, the same was placed before the Screening Board constituted by the Bank for scrutinization of applications received from the Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement as per the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 eligible criteria mentioned in the SOP. After scrutiny of applications, 605 no. of candidates were shortlisted by the Screening Board and thereafter physical test and physical aptitude test have been completed and the offer of appointment are being issued to the selected candidates.” 6. As could be seen from the stand taken by the SBI, the second respondent did forward a list of 5501 names of Ex-servicemen and out of which, the Screening Committee constituted by the SBI shortlisted 605 candidates. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were in this shortlisted 605 candidates. However, it is the case of the SBI that two names had been added extraneously and as a result of which the SBI took a decision to annul the entire process and issue a fresh Notification. 8. In my view, this cancellation of the entire recruitment process only because two names were added would not be fair and proper. 9. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as a matter of fact, the SBI has sought to fill up 100 more vacancies and has addressed a letter to the Director, Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement to furnish the list of Ex-servicemen and the petitioners would be satisfied if the SBI is directed to consider the case of the petitioner first and thereafter secure the names from the Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement for filling up the remaining vacancies. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 10. Having regard to the fact that the name of the petitioners had been forwarded by the Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement and they had also undergone the physical test successfully, it would be appropriate to direct the SBI to consider the case of the petitioners first before considering the names that are forwarded by the Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement pursuant to its request dated 11.07.2023. 11. The said exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. It is made clear that the SBI shall consider the list of the names forwarded by the Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement, pursuant to its request dated 11.07.2023, in which the names of the petitioners are found and only after it considers the case of the present petitioners for recruitment, it shall proceed to seek for a fresh list of names from respondent No.2. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of." In WP.No.2816/2024 this Court held as under: ORDER 1. Heard Smt. Vinutha.K., learned counsel for Sri. Sridhar.N.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. Perused the writ petition papers. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 2. The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus which reads as follows: i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, direction or any other appropriate order directing the Respondent - Bank to give order of appointment to the petitioners as Bank Guards in permanent vacancies in the Respondent Bank by conducting the final process of selection of medical examination of the Petitioners by the Respondent Bank; ii) AND direct the Respondent - Bank to fix the particular date and intimate the same to the petitioners for appearing for medical test / medical examination as a final process of selection and give them order of appointment as Bank Guards in permanent vacancies in the Respondent Bank. 3. The petitioners claim that they are all Ex-servicemen and they applied for the post of Guards in the respondent-Bank and the Bank interviewed them along with other candidates. But it is the grievance of the petitioners that they are not aware as to what is the outcome of the interview faced by them. 4. Learned counsel Sri. T.P.Muthanna on the other hand would submit that selection process is completed and out of 25 Ex-servicemen, 09 petitioners who are before this - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 Court are not selected as they are not eligible for various reasons. But it is a fact that the petitioners have not been informed the reasons for their non-selection. 5. In the above circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-Bank to communicate the petitioners the reasons for their non-selection. Hence, the following: ORDER The respondent-Bank is directed to communicate the result of the recruitment in question and if the petitioners are not selected, the reasons for non-selection within four weeks from today. With the above, writ petition stands disposed off. " 11. The aforesaid order passed by this Court in WP No.9909/2023 dated 12.09.2023 has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondents. As can be seen from the aforesaid order passed by this Court in WP No.9909/2023, this Court has come to the categorical conclusion that the names of the petitioners had been forwarded by the department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement and that the petitioners had undergone the physical test successfully and under - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 these circumstances this Court deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondent - Bank to consider the case of the petitioners first before considering the names that are forwarded by the department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement pursuant to its request dated 11.07.2023. 12. At paragraph Nos.10 and 12 of the said order, this Court further held that the respondent - Bank shall consider the list of the names forwarded by the Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement pursuant to its request dated 11.07.2023 in which the names of the petitioners are found and only after it considers the case of the present petitioners for recruitment, it shall proceed to seek for a fresh list of names from respondent No. 2. In this context, a perusal of the impugned endorsements will clearly indicate that the aforesaid directions issued by this Court have not been complied with by the respondent and as such the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent - Bank without complying with aforesaid directions deserves to be quashed. 13. A perusal of the impugned endorsements will also indicate that the respondents conducted a fresh/new physical test on 27.12.2023 and has rejected the claim of the petitioners for - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 selection on the ground that the cut off score was 98 and at the mark secured by the petitioners were well below the said cut-off score of 98. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that neither in the recruitment notification nor in the SOP, the cut-off score of 98 is mentioned and in the absence of any material to establish that the cut-off score was 98, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents clearly fell in error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for selection to the post of Bank Guards on the ground that the cut off score was 98, which is contrary to the material on record. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned endorsement at Annexures - E, E1 to E6 and Annexures G, G1 to G6 and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, bearing in mind WP No.9909/2023 and WP No.2816/2024 within a stipulated time frame, without conducting any further physical test. ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19244 WP No. 13294 of 2025 (ii) The impugned Annexures E, E1 to E6 and Annexures G, G1 to G6 are hereby quashed. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh without conducting any fresh/new physical test and take appropriate decisions/pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and bearing in mind the fact that the petitioners are ex servicemen. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9