- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4001-DB WP No. 31379 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 31379 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. 3. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, NRUPAHTUNGA ROAD, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF DDPI, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101. 5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, CENTRALIZED ADMISSION CELL, OPPOSITE TO CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4001-DB WP No. 31379 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT. SHRUTHI R., D/O. LATE SRI. RAMACHANDRA M., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NEAR ST. ANNES SCHOOL, TEACHERS COLONY, MULBAGAL TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT-563031. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI YATHISHA K. J., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.5108/2024, DATED 09/04/2025 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners and Sri K.J. Yathisha, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed by the State and its authorities calling in question the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Application No.5108/2024 by the Karnataka State - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4001-DB WP No. 31379 of 2025 Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). 3. The brief facts are that the respondent, being eligible for appointment to the post of Graduate Primary School Teacher (GPST), submitted an application pursuant to the Notification issued in the year 2022 in respect of Kolar District. The respondent was married on 22.08.2010, and her marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 23.01.2021. The online recruitment application contained a column requiring declaration of marital status. In the said column, the respondent selected ‘Yes’ against the marital status, indicating herself as ‘married’. 3.1 The respondent furnished Caste and Income Certificates issued in the name of her late father on 23.03.2021. Thereafter, she appeared for the GPSTR–2022 competitive examination, secured 70.22816 marks, and qualified under the 2A Women quota. Her name was included in the 1:2 selection list dated 27.09.2022 at Sl. No.59. Upon document verification on 10.10.2022, the main selection list was published on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4001-DB WP No. 31379 of 2025 08.03.2023, wherein the respondent’s name was shown at Sl. No.44. 3.2 However, in the list of eligible candidates notified on 19.10.2023, the respondent’s name was not featured. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent submitted detailed representations dated 25.10.2023 and 07.11.2023. On account of non-consideration of the said representations, she preferred Application No.5313/2023 before the Tribunal, which came to be withdrawn on 04.01.2024 on the assurance extended by the petitioners to consider her representations. The respondent thereafter submitted another representation dated 05.10.2024. As the authorities failed to consider the same, the respondent filed Application No.5108/2024 before the Tribunal. 3.3 By the impugned order, the Tribunal directed petitioner No.4 to consider the pending representations and to pass appropriate orders regarding the appointment of the respondent as Graduate Primary School Teacher. The said order is assailed by the State and its authorities in the present writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4001-DB WP No. 31379 of 2025 4. Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the respondent was married and subsequently divorced. It is contended that, notwithstanding the dissolution of her marriage, the respondent declared her marital status as ‘married’ in the online application. It is further submitted that, in the event the respondent was married, she was required to furnish the Caste and Income Certificates of her husband. However, contrary to her declared marital status, the respondent produced the Caste and Income Certificates of her father. It is submitted that it was only at that stage that the respondent produced the decree of divorce. 4.1 Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the respondent was required to furnish accurate and complete information in the application. It is contended that, in the absence of a specific column to indicate the status of being ‘divorced’, the respondent ought to have furnished an explanatory note so as to avoid any ambiguity. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the mere inclusion of the respondent’s name in the provisional selection - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4001-DB WP No. 31379 of 2025 list does not confer any right to final selection or appointment unless the respondent satisfies all the prescribed eligibility criteria. It is urged that the Tribunal, without adverting to the aforesaid aspects, has erroneously directed consideration of the respondent’s case for appointment to the post of Graduate Primary School Teacher. 5. Sri K.J. Yathisha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that as on the date of submission of the application, the respondent’s marital status stood altered by dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. It is contended that the online application did not provide any separate column to indicate the status of being a ‘divorcee’. In the absence of such a column, the respondent marked ‘Yes’ against the column relating to marital status. Learned counsel submits that, in the absence of a suitable column in the application to reflect such a situation, it cannot be contended that the respondent furnished incorrect information. 5.1 It is further submitted that once the marriage of the respondent stood dissolved by a decree of divorce, the respondent was entitled to furnish the Caste and Income - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4001-DB WP No. 31379 of 2025 Certificate of her father, which she has rightly produced. Learned counsel contends that the respondent successfully cleared all stages of the selection process and that her name was included in the selection list; however, for no justifiable reason, her name was subsequently omitted from the list of eligible candidates. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal, having duly considered the aforesaid aspects, has rightly directed consideration of the representations/applications of the respondent for appointment to the post of Graduate Primary School Teacher. 6. Having considered the submissions made on either side, it is an undisputed fact that the respondent was a ‘divorcee’ as on the date of submission of the application. The applications were invited in the year 2022. The respondent’s marriage was solemnized on 22.08.2010 and the same was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 23.01.2021. Thus, as on the date of the application, the marital status of the respondent was that of a ‘divorcee’. 7. It is also not in dispute that the online recruitment application did not provide any column to disclose the marital - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4001-DB WP No. 31379 of 2025 status of the respondent as a ‘divorcee’. In the absence of such a column being provided in the application, and further in the absence of any provision enabling the applicant to furnish additional or explanatory information, the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the respondent ought to have furnished an explanatory note along with the application cannot be accepted. In the absence of a specific column for indicating the marital status as ‘divorcee’, the petitioner-authorities cannot contend that there was non- disclosure or furnishing of incorrect information by the respondent. 8. We may observe that once a person is married and the marriage is subsequently dissolved by a decree of divorce, the factum of marriage remains, though the marital relationship stands severed by virtue of the decree of divorce. Viewed from this angle as well, we are unable to accept the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners. 9. The Tribunal, having considered the aforesaid contentions, has rightly directed consideration of the pending representations and the case of the respondent for appointment - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4001-DB WP No. 31379 of 2025 to the post of GPST. While issuing such a direction, the Tribunal has also rightly observed that the respondent was otherwise found eligible in terms of the final selection list dated 19.10.2023. 10. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. No demonstrable grounds are made out warranting interference with the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20