- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2423 WP No. 100947 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.100947 OF 2026 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: SHRI. NAGARAJ S/O. SHIVABASAPPA HATTIKAL AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. CLASS-I CIVIL CONTRACTOR, R/O. NEAR UDASI KALYAN MANTAP, HANGAL-581104, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUHAS K.HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEER DIVISION, HAVERI 581110, TQ/DIST. HAVERI. 2. THE TAHASILDAR HANGAL TALUK, HANGAL-581104, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO ISSUE THE WORK ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER PERTAINING TO THE EXECUTION OF THE WORKS OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS AND CONCRETE DRAINS WHICH ARE MENTIONED AT SL.NO. 1, 11, 12 AND 16 OF THE WORKS ITEMS CHART WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.20 11:35:20 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2423 WP No. 100947 of 2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to issue work order in his favour in respect of construction of roads and concrete drains mentioned at Sl. Nos.1, 11, 12 and 16 of the work items chart produced at Annexure-A. 3. The petitioner is a Class-I Civil Contractor. Respondent No.1 floated a tender notification inviting applications from eligible registered contractors for execution of works relating to construction of roads and concrete drains in various parts of Hangal Taluk (Annexure-A). 4. The petitioner claiming to belong to category 2A submitted his tender application seeking along with - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2423 WP No. 100947 of 2026 the caste certificate. Upon opening the technical and financial bids, the petitioner emerged as the lowest bidder. 5. However, before issuance of work order, respondent No.2 issued a communication dated 21.01.2026 to respondent No.1, stating that the petitioners belongs to category 2A only for educational purpose and not for employment purposes and that his castes falls under category 3A for other purposes. Apprehending cancellation of his tender, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once he has produced a valid caste certificate certifying that he belongs to category 2A, the respondent cannot deny the reservation in tender allotment. It is contended that classification of a community differently for educational and employment purposes, is impermissible. Reliance is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2423 WP No. 100947 of 2026 placed on the judgment of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of V. Sumitra D/o Vemlata Shetty vs State of Karnataka and Others1 (V. Sumitra), wherein, it was held that a communication cannot be classified under one group for educational purpose and another group for employment. It is further held that the State having classified the "Balajiga/Banajiga community" as Group-B for education purposes, it is required for the State to classify the very same community as Group-B for employment purposes and not under Group-D. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State submits that there is no order cancelling the tender has been passed. It is contended that the writ petition is premature, as no adverse order has been 1 W.P.No.15499/2013 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2423 WP No. 100947 of 2026 issued against the petitioner and a direction to issue a work order cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction in absence of a concluded right. 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 9. Admittedly, there is no order cancelling the petitioner’s tender as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The apprehension of the petitioner arises from an inter departmental communication dated 21.01.2026 between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 regarding the petitioner’s Class classification. 10. Insofar as issue of classification is concerned, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in V. Sumitra’s case (supra), has held at para No.13.23 and 14, which reads as under; “13.23 In that view of the matter, I answer point No.1 by holding that a particular community cannot be classified for educational purposes under - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2423 WP No. 100947 of 2026 a different group than the classification made for the very same community for employment purposes under a different group. The community would have to be classified for both educational purposes and employment purposes under the same group. The State having classified the “Balajiga/Banajiga community” as Group-B for education purposes, it is required for the State to classify the very same community as Group-B for employment purposes and not under Group-D. 14. Answer to point No.2: What order? 14.1. In view of my answer to the above point, I pass the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A certiorari is issued, order dated 8.4.1996 in No.BCM.4.ANI.77-96-96 passed by Respondent No.2 at Annexure-D and the order dated 15.6.1999 in No.CCI.30/97-97 passed by respondent No.4- Appellate Authority at Annexure-E are quashed. iii. It is declared that the classification of the “Balajiga/Banajiga community” for the purpose of employment, being different from that for the purpose of education, is discriminatory and illegal and void ab initio and violative to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. iv. The State is directed to reclassify the “Balajiga/Banajiga community” under Article 16(4) under Group-B instead of Group-D. v. It is declared that the Petitioner belonging to “Balajiga/Banajiga community” would be entitled to reservation for employment, under Group-B and as such her employment as a primary school teacher is directed to be continued by availing of such benefit.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2423 WP No. 100947 of 2026 11. In V. Sumithra’s case, it has been categorically held that community cannot be classified under one group for educational purpose and under another group for employment purposes. Such differential classification was held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. Therefore, while this Court cannot issue a positive direction to grant work order, the authorities is required to consider the petitioner’s case, keeping in view the law declared by this Court that classification for educational and employment purpose cannot be different for the same community. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondents while considering issuance of work order pursuant to the tender notification at Annexure-A shall bear in mind the law laid down by this Court in V. Sumithra’s case regarding uniform - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2423 WP No. 100947 of 2026 classification of community for educational and employment purposes. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AM/- Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27