Karnataka High Court
Vinod S. Laskare S/O Late Shivaji Rao vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 21 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:419-DB
WP No. 200036 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
WRIT PETITION NO.200036 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI VINOD S. LASKARE
S/O LATE SHIVAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/O: AT TORNA,
TQ: AURAD (B),
DIST: BIDAR - 585 443.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.G.CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SACHIN 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (PRIMARY),
BENGALURU - 01.
2. THE SELECTION AUTHORITY
AND THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (ADMN),
BIDAR DISTRICT,
DIST: BIDAR - 585 441.
3. THE CENTRALIZED ADMISSION CELL
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL OFFICER,
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:419-DB
WP No. 200036 of 2022
HC-KAR
4. SRI GANESH
S/O JAIRAM JADHAV
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O: AT MALEGOAN THANDA,
TQ: AURAD (B),
DIST: BIDAR - 585 442.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI R.J.BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 05.07.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT KALABURAGI IN APPLICATION
NO.534/2017 AND TO ALLOW APPLICATION NO.534/2017 AS
PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:419-DB
WP No. 200036 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.07.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Kalaburagi in Application No.534/2017.
2. The petitioner and the respondent No.4 were applicants against a notification issued by the respondent No.2 for selection to the post of Assistant Teachers in Marathi language. It is the case of the petitioner that the last date prescribed for filing the applications was 27.04.2015, by which time the applicants were bound to produce all documents which they relied upon. He contends that the respondent No.4 claimed the reservation applicable to schedule caste and also the benefit of Article 371-J of the Constitution of India (for short, 'Article 371-J'). However, the respondent No.4 did not produce the certificate under Article 371-J before 27.04.2015. He contends that his name appeared in the provisional select list and thereafter the name of the respondent No.4 -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:419-DB WP No. 200036 of 2022 HC-KAR appeared in the final select list. The petitioner thus challenged the selection of the respondent No.4 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.534/2017.
3. The Tribunal after considering the contentions of the petitioner held that every infraction of a rule need not necessarily result in rejection of the candidature. It also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India Vs. Rimjihim reported in (2019) 5 SCC 793 and held that there is no infirmity in the selection authority accepting the verification certificate issued by the competent authority at the time of document verification. Consequently, it dismissed the application in terms of the impugned order. Being aggrieved by said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 was bound to place on record the documents to demonstrate that he is entitled to the -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:419-DB WP No. 200036 of 2022 HC-KAR benefit under Article 371-J. He contends that admittedly the respondent No.4 produced the certificate issued on 29.07.2015 while the verification was done on 24.07.2015. He thus contends that the respondent No.4 did not produce all the material documents before the last date fixed for filing the application and hence his application must have been rejected. He also submits that the respondent No.4 did not produce the certificate under Article 371-J even at the time of verification and therefore the respondent No.4 could not have been selected.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the respondent No.4 has more merit than the petitioner and belongs to scheduled caste. He contends that the respondent No.4 was not selected under the Article 371-J category but was selected under General Merit category based on the marks secured by him in the qualifying examination. He therefore submits that even if the respondent No.4 had not produced the certificate under Article 371-J, his application could not have been -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:419-DB WP No. 200036 of 2022 HC-KAR rejected but at the most benefit of Article 371-J could not be extended. He pointed out to the selection list and contended that the respondent No.4 is selected against a General Merit category and hence the petitioner cannot have any grievance for the selection of respondent No.4. Even otherwise, he contends that the respondent No.4 belongs to the Hyderabad-Karnataka area and the same is evident from the certificate issued.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
7. The final select list placed on record shows that the respondent No.4 was selected in the General Merit category. Assuming that the respondent No.4 had not produced the Article 371-J certificate, that could not result in rejection of his application filed for recruitment. At the most, the respondent No.4 could have been excluded from the benefit of Article 371-J. Since the respondent No.4 is selected under the General Merit category, the petitioner -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:419-DB WP No. 200036 of 2022 HC-KAR cannot have any grievance as the respondent No.4 had secured more marks than the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, we do not see any error in the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal warranting interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) JUDGE BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54