Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25581 (KAR)

MAHALAXMI JUMANALAMATH v. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

WA/971/2026 · 2026-06-15

D K Singh, T M Nadaf

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28966-DB WA No. 971 of 2026 C/W WA No. 992 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 971 OF 2026 (S-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2026 (S-RES) IN WA No. 971/2026 BETWEEN: 1. MAHALAXMI JUMANALAMATH, W/O VEERESH BADNIMATH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22, 2ND FLOOR, PRANYATEJA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., 1ST MAIN ROAD, SHREEKANTAN LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. SHIVAPRASAD JUMANALAMATH, S/O. GURAYYA C. JUMANALAMATH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 11, 4TH CROSS, KALYAN NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI - 580 031. 3. SMT. HAMSA K., W/O. PRAKASH D., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 34, 1ST MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28966-DB WA No. 971 of 2026 C/W WA No. 992 of 2026 AYYAPPA NAGARA, K. R. PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036. 4. SMT. RASHMI, W/O JAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 36, 'LEELA NILAYAM' HALADALLI TOWN, MYSURU - 570 026. 5. SMT. RESHMA, D/O ABDUL SAHEB NADAF, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR KAKATIYA SCHOOL, DEVARAJ ARAS COLONY, RAICHUR - 584 101. 6. SMT. ANITA, C/O RANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 97, SHAHABAD ROAD, RAJAPUR COLONY, KALABURAGI - 585 105. 7. SRI. PARTHASARATHI A. KULKARNI, S/O ANILRAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 70/A, SCHEME NO. 33, OM BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, TILAKWADI, BELGAUM - 590 006. 8. SRI. VISHWANATH, C/O SOMASINGA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. T-7-479, RTPS COLONY, DEOSUGUR, SHAKTINAGAR, RAICHUR - 584 170. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28966-DB WA No. 971 of 2026 C/W WA No. 992 of 2026 9. SMT. SAVITA BANAKAR, W/O SHARANABASAVA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 12/1, 18TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 021. 10. SMT. BHAVYA V, W/O. RAGHAVENDRA H. V., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.301, 1ST FLOOR, VIJAYALAKSHMI PARADISE 13TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, DASARAHALLI, KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 024. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO. 82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, CORPORATE OFFICE, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 012. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SMT.RADHIKA JAJU, FOR SRI. AJAY J. NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28966-DB WA No. 971 of 2026 C/W WA No. 992 of 2026 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.2328/2026 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION NO.2328/206 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS - PETITIONERS, AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC., IN WA NO. 992/2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SYED BURHAAN AHAMED, S/O. SYED NISAR AHAMED, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.1 AND 2, WARD NO.16, 1ST CROSS, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, VISHAL NAGAR, BALLARI - 583 101. 2. MS. RASHMI BALGAR, D/O. VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT QUARTERS N. C85, OFFICERS COLONY, HUTTI, LINGASUGUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 115. 3. MS. HABEEBA, D/O LAL AHMED, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1212, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, DEVASUGURU, SHAKTINAGAR, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 170. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K., ADVOCATE) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28966-DB WA No. 971 of 2026 C/W WA No. 992 of 2026 AND: 1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO. 82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, CORPORATE OFFICE, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 012. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY A/W SMT. RADHIKAR JAJU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJAY J. NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER DATED:26.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.39094/2025 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.39094/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION No.39094/2025 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS PETITIONERS, AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28966-DB WA No. 971 of 2026 C/W WA No. 992 of 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) Heard Sri. Prithveesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Radhika Jaju for the respondent No.2 and Sri.Ajay J Nandalika, learned counsel appearing for the Caveator/respondent No.1. 2. These intra-court appeals have been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.Nos.39094/2025 & connected matters. 3. This is the third round before this Court in respect of the recruitment to the various posts in Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, a Government of Karnataka Undertaking. Initially, the advertisement for making selection to the various posts was issued in the year 2017 i.e., 03.08.2017. An examination held in pursuance to the said Notification came to be cancelled - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28966-DB WA No. 971 of 2026 C/W WA No. 992 of 2026 because of the gross irregularities in conducting the examination. Second Notification was issued in the year 2023 and the examination was conducted in respect of the said notification. However, result of the examination came to be challenged on the ground that in the notification it was not notified that there would be negative markings for wrong answers and the candidates were not informed about the negative markings. 4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.No.14233/2024 challenging the Provisional Score List dated 08.05.2024 prepared after the examination result was announced. The Division Bench, however, allowed the writ appeals in W.A.No.1298/2024 and connected matters vide order dated 28.05.2025 and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single judge was set aside and a direction was issued to the Official Respondents to conduct re-examination for all the candidates who appeared in the examination on 18.02.2024 conducted pursuant to the Notification dated 03.08.2017. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28966-DB WA No. 971 of 2026 C/W WA No. 992 of 2026 5. The matter was taken up in Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) No.32255/2025. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench. After the matter got concluded before the Supreme Court, third Notification was issued on 19.11.2025 pursuant to which the examination has already been conducted and the selection list has been published and the selected candidates have been appointed. 6. The petitioners not having been satisfied with the result, filed writ petition on the ground that as per Notification dated 03.06.2025 separate recruitment examination ought to have been conducted for Karnataka Region and Hyderabad-Karnataka Region. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that once the petitioners have participated in the examination without any demur, they have no right to challenge the examination after the result is announced. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28966-DB WA No. 971 of 2026 C/W WA No. 992 of 2026 7. We are amazed to find that after one decade the recruitments could not be made because of the litigation conducted by the candidates on one or the other ground. The recruitment to the Public Office has to be concluded at the earliest because it is in public interest. We find no merit in the writ appeals, hence the writ appeals stand dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1