- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19831 WP No. 30683 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 30683 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. S.C.S. PARENTS ASSOCIATION (R) REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY 1ST MAIN ROAD, PJ EXTENSION, OPPOSITE TO EXTENSION POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. SRI. S.G. KULAKARNI, JOINT SECRETARY. 2. SMT. KAVITHA C W/O NAVEENKUMAR N.M AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WORKING AS ENGLISH LECTURER SMT.SUNDARAMMA RAJANAHALLI LAKSHMANASHETTY WOMENS PU COLLEGE, P.J EXTENSION, OPPOSITE TO EXTENSION POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PADMANABHA R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S BULDING, DR. AMBEEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19831 WP No. 30683 of 2024 2. THE DIRECTOR FOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM - 560 012. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. DPUE- EST30JH(LPA)/3/2023/1039735 DTD. 23.10.2024 VIDE ANNX-J ISSUED BY THE R2 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs - " i) Issue a writ in the nature certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement bearing No.DPUE-EST30JH (LPA)/3/2023/1039735 dated 23.10.2024 vide Annexure-J issued by the 2nd Respondent. ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to approve the selection list dated 15.07.2023 by which the 2nd petitioner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19831 WP No. 30683 of 2024 was selected and appointed as English Lecturer vide Annexure-H. iii) Issue such other orders, directions as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition with exemplary." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and invited my attention to the material on record including the impugned endorsement in order to point out that impugned endorsement purporting to apply reservation and roster to the post of a Lecturer in Political Science, which is a single post, is contrary to law and as such, the impugned endorsement deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the respondents for consideration afresh in accordance with law. In support of his submission that reservation to a single post is impermissible in law, he has placed reliance upon following judgments - - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19831 WP No. 30683 of 2024 i) State of Karnataka and Others v. K.Govindappa and Another, reported in (2009)1 Supreme Court Cases 1; ii) R.R.Inamdar v. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in (2020)19 Supreme Court Cases 543; iii) Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3184; and iv) K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, reported in (2008)3 Supreme Court Cases 512. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. would submit that there is no merit in the petition and same is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the impugned endorsement would indicate that the respondents purported to reserve single post by way of reservation and roster, which is impermissible in law, as held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. 6. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned endorsement and remit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19831 WP No. 30683 of 2024 the matter back to respondent no.2 for consideration afresh in accordance with law in the light of the aforesaid judgments. 7. In the result, the following : ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The Impugned endorsement issued by respondent no.2 vide Annexure-J is quashed. iii. The matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 for re-consideration afresh bearing in mind the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0