- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1015 WP No. 100260 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.100260 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE CO-OPERATIVE EDUCATION SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MISHRIKOTI. TQ KALGHATGI, DIST DHARWAD. 2. CHAITANYADEVI G. KOTIMATH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER IN CESSJ PU COLLEGE, MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALGHATGI, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERATURE (PRE-UNIVERSITY) M. S. BUILDING, BANGALURU 560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATTION (PRE UNIVERSITY) 8TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRE UNIVERSITY) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.02 10:00:37 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1015 WP No. 100260 of 2026 COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD 580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. DPUE/EST3/JJ (LPA)/5/2024/1618356 DATED 16.06.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-S AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER NO 2 TO THE POST OF LECTURER IN ENGLISH AS PER THE DECISION OF THE INSTITUTION DATED 17-04-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND EXTEND ALL THE MONETARY BENEFITS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA) 1. The petitioner No.1–Society and the candidate- petitioner No.2 have approached this Court seeking to quash the impugned endorsement dated 16.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-S), whereby respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1015 WP No. 100260 of 2026 No.2 rejected the proposal seeking the appointment of petitioner No.2 and further directed petitioner No.1 to obtain the approval of respondent No.2 before continuing with the selection process. The petitioners further seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to approve the appointment of petitioner No.2 to the post of Lecturer in English, as per the decision of petitioner No.1–Society dated 17.04.2024 (Annexure-L), and to extend all the monetary benefits. 2. Brief facts: The petitioner No.2 was appointed as a Guest Lecturer in English in the college run by petitioner No.1–Society by an appointment order dated 06.06.2013. By order dated 09.02.2017, respondent No.1 allowed the Private Aided Pre- University Colleges to fill up vacant posts of lecturers subject to certain conditions. The post of Lecturer in English fell vacant on retirement of one Shri N.B. Kurabbatte, and hence, petitioner No.1–Society sought permission from the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1015 WP No. 100260 of 2026 respondents-authorities for filling up of the said post, and the request of petitioner No.1–Society was forwarded by the respondent-authority. The respondent No.1, on being satisfied with the proposal, permitted petitioner No.1–Society to fill up the post of lecturer. Pursuant to the same, petitioner No.1– Society called for applications from eligible candidates by way of paper publication, and after following the recruitment process, published the list of candidates appearing for selection. The Managing Committee took a decision on 17.04.2024 of appointing the petitioner No.2- candidate to the post of lecturer in English and decided to take approval from the respondent authorities. The Secretary of petitioner No.1-Society by its representation requested for approval of the appointment of petitioner No.2-candidate. The proposal of petitioner No.1– Society was returned with a direction to obtain prior - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1015 WP No. 100260 of 2026 approval from respondent No.2 before proceeding with the recruitment process. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of petitioner No.2 is in pursuance of the approval granted by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-G dated 01.07.2023, and that the said approval was accorded through respondent No.2, as referred to in the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 17 of the Karnataka Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration and Grant-In-Aid Etc.) Rules, 2006, (for short ‘Rules, 2006’) prior permission of the respondent-authority is mandated. The said Rule fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Karnataka Rajya Anudanitha Shikshana Samsthegala Okkuta Vs. Department Of Education (Primary & Secondary Education) Government Of Karnataka And Others1, (Karnataka Rajya Anudanitha Shikshana Samsthegala 1 W.P.No.11667/2022 (DD 08.12.2023) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1015 WP No. 100260 of 2026 Okkuta) wherein this Court has held that prior permission to fill up a vacancy means that educational institutions are required to inform the competent authority that they are filling up the vacancy which has arisen due to resignation, retirement, promotion, or death, in respect of the posts admitted by them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 without considering the decision of this Court in the case of Karnataka Rajya Anudanitha Shikshana Samsthegala Okkuta (supra) and without appreciating the same in its proper manner and giving the benefit of the order referred to above, has passed the impugned order without application of mind. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State sought to justify the impugned order and submits that as per Rule 17 of the Rules, 2006, prior permission from the Director is mandatory and when the Rules prescribe a particular - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1015 WP No. 100260 of 2026 procedure to be followed in a particular manner, the same has to be followed and without prior permission, the approval was rightly refused by respondent No.2. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions raised and perused the material on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the approval of petitioner No.2 is in pursuance of the permission granted by respondent No.1, which is evident from Annexure-G dated 01.07.2023. Rule 17 of the Rules, 2006 reads thus: “Rule – 17:- Mode of notifying a vacancy for the purpose of recruitment :- (1) A managing committee of a private aided Pre- University college may notify a vacancy which arises in accordance with Rule 16 after obtaining prior permission for doing so from the Director. The notification shall be published on the notice board of the office of the management; Pre-University college concerned; the Deputy Director of Pre-University Education of the concerned district and further it shall be published in at least one leading newspaper having largest circulation in the district. The notification shall contain the description of the vacant post, caste category reservation if any, the number and date of permission to advertise accorded by the Director, the minimum qualification specified, the last date fixed for submitting the application and marks and caste certificates to be produced in support of the academic qualification and caste category. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1015 WP No. 100260 of 2026 (2) After the last date for submitting the application is over, the management shall verify the particulars of all the candidates whether eligible or otherwise serially in the order of their academic merit, placing the candidate with the highest marks scored in the Post Graduation degree in the first place. If the academic merit of more than one candidate is same, the candidate older in age shall be placed above the other. If the highest total marks prescribed for the qualifying examinations of different candidates vary, then, the managing committee shall prepare the list based on the percentage or a common denominator. (3) For each post, five applicants in the top of the list prepared under sub-rule (2) shall be called for interview, unless the total number of applicants is less than 5, in which case all the applicants shall be called for the interview. The management shall consult the Deputy Director of the concerned district to fix a date and time for the interview of the candidates and shall conduct the interview in the premises of the concerned Pre-University College. (4) The managing committee shall constitute a recruitment committee comprising of four members; two representing the managing committee, the third being the Deputy Director of the concerned district, unless the Director nominates someone else by a specific order and the fourth being a subject expert to be nominated by the managing committee. (5) The candidates called for interview shall demonstrate their ability to teach the subject and handle a class by actually delivering a lecture before a class of students of concerned college for at least twenty minutes in the presence of the recruitment committee. (6) Each member of the recruitment committee may award a maximum of twenty-five marks and the total interview marks that can be awarded to any candidate shall not exceed twelve percent of the marks secured in the qualifying examination. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1015 WP No. 100260 of 2026 (7) The recruitment committee shall then prepare a list of selected candidates showing the marks scored in the Post Graduation examination and the marks awarded by the recruitment committee separately and also the total marks against the name of each candidate. (8) The recruitment committee shall prepare, in the order of merit, a panel of three selected candidates for appointment to the post on the basis of the aggregate percentage of marks in the qualifying examination and marks scored at the interview. The managing committee shall send the appointment order to the person in the order of merit. Prior approval of the Director shall be obtained before issuing the appointment order to the selected candidate.” 8. The above Rule mandates taking prior permission from the respondent-authority. The respondent No.1–State Government has approved permission to fill up the vacant posts. Rule 17 of the Rules, 2006, which relates to obtaining prior permission, came for consideration before this Court in the case of Karnataka Rajya Anudanitha Shikshana Samsthegala Okkuta (supra), and this Court, at Para No.116, has held as under: “116. In view of the observations above, the writ petition is allowed and it is hereby held that Clause 2 of Annexure-I of 1999 Rules and Rule 17 of the 2006 Rules, which requires the obtaining of prior permission to fill up the vacancies, is read down to mean that the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1015 WP No. 100260 of 2026 educational institutions are required to only inform the competent authority that they are filling up the vacancies which have arisen due to retirement, resignation, promotion or death, in respect of the posts which have been admitted to grantin-aid and the competent authority is, thereafter, bound to grant permission to fill up the vacant posts and the only power that the competent authority possesses in this regard is to object to the filling up of the posts if the reservation roster points are not followed while filling up such vacant posts. If the vacant posts are being filled up in accordance with the reservation roster points, the competent authority is bound to accord permission without any delay.” 9. In the light of the order passed by this Court, the intention behind taking prior permission to fill up vacant posts is to inform the competent authority that a particular post is vacant and that the Institution intends to fill the vacancy due to retirement, resignation, promotion, or other reasons and that is the mandate of Rule 17 of the Rules, 2006. 10. When this was the fact, respondent No.2 denying approval is without justification and without application of mind. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1015 WP No. 100260 of 2026 No.2 is unsustainable and warrants interference by this Court. 11. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsement dated 16.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-S) is hereby quashed. iii. The respondent No.2 is directed to approve the appointment of petitioner No.2-candidate to the post of lecturer in English as per the Government permission dated 01.07.2023 (Annexure-G) and to pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and extend all the consequential benefits. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AM/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17