Karnataka High Court
Choute Prashanth Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 November, 2025
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250
WP No. 201077 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 201077 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
CHOUTE PRASHANTH REDDY
S/O ANJI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
ADHAAR NO.7382 8464 7603,
C/O. ANJI REDDY, GANDHI CHOWK,
AURAD (B), AURAD RURAL,
DIST. BIDAR-585326,
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BIRADAR SHARANAPPA SHANKAREPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
BIO-TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
6TH FLOOR, 5TH STAGE, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU -560001.
2. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA STATE
ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
(KEONICS), #59, KUMARAPARK WEST EXTENSION,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250
WP No. 201077 of 2025
HC-KAR
RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560020.
3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA EXAMINATION
AUTHORITY, 18TH CROSS,
SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560012.
4. THE DIRECTOR (MANAGEMENT)
AND THE MEMBER SECRETARY,
SELECTION COMMITTEE, KARNATAKA STATE
ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED, #59 KUMARAPARK WEST EXTENSION,
RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560020.
5. KHAJA HUSAIN SAB S/O MAHIBOOB ALI,
E/58/B/CHIGRIHAL,
POST. HEGGANADODDI,
TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIR
STATE KARNATAKA -585216.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., AGA FOR R1;
SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R2 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
GRANT A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE
RECRUITMENT PROCESS HELD UNDER THE NOTIFICATION AS
PER ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE
PETITIONER; B) GRANT A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.KSEDC/EST/NE.NE/01/2024-25
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250
WP No. 201077 of 2025
HC-KAR
DATED 26.03.2025 AT ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY RESPONDENT
NO.2 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER; C) GRANT
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO
APPOINT THE PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT
MANAGER (TECHNICAL) GROUP-B IN KALYAN KARNATAKA
LOCAL CADRE AND D) PASS SUCH OTHER WRIT ORDER OR
DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS JUST AND
PROPER INCLUDING AN ORDER AS TO COSTS IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL) Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs :
a) Grant a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to call for the records pertaining to the recruitment process held under the notification as per Annexure-A insofar as it relates to the petitioner;
b) Grant a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order No.KSEDC/EST/NE.NE/01/2024-25 dated 26.03.2025 at Annexure-M passed by respondent No.2 insofar as it relates to the petitioner;
c) Grant a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner for the post of Assistant Manager (Technical) Group-B in Kalyan Karnataka Local Cadre and -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR
d) Pass such other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper including an order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
2. Case of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 had issued recruitment notification dated 23.06.2023 as per Annexure-A inviting online application for various posts including Assistant Manager (Technical) Group-B in Kalyan Karnataka Area (Local) Cadre. There were four posts of Assistant Manager (Technical) Group-B. The notification prescribed the education qualification for the said post as under :
a) An Engineering degree with electronics/Computer Science/Information Technology/ Information Science/Electronic and Communication and any other IT related Engineering Course from any recognized University;
b) Minimum 5 years of experience in respective field preferably in PSEs.
3. That in response to the said notification dated 23.06.2023, petitioner submitted his application. A -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR competitive examination was conducted by respondent No.3. Petitioner participated and secured 151 marks out of 400, thereby achieving second rank. Document verification was held at KEONICS on 07.01.2025. Based on the marks scored in the competitive examination, name of the petitioner was short listed in the ratio of 1:3. Petitioner participated in the document verification process and submitted his experience certificates having worked in five companies, namely :
1) Telesoft (2 years, 8 months);
2) Quikr (8 months);
3) Eduskills (1 year, 1 month and 10 days);
4) Knowx (10 months); and
5) Jspiders (6 months, 7 days).
Thus, aggregating for a period of 5 years, 9 months 17 days.
4. That despite petitioner being eligible, respondent No.4 rejected his candidature without considering the experience certificates for the 10 months -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR issued by Knowx. Respondent No.4 only acknowledged the experience of the petitioner for the period of 4 years 9 months. Thereafter, petitioner submitted experience certificate for 10 months issued by Knowx on 13.03.2025.
5. Respondent No.4 thereafter published provisional selection lists. List No.1 dated 12.02.2025 for the residual parent cadre with a note stating that the provisional selection list for the Assistant Manager (Technical) in Kalyan Karnataka cadre would be published in due course. List No.2 dated 21.02.2025 carried a special note that the notice is issued and the provisional selection list for the Assistant Manager (Technical) in Kalyan Karnataka cadre would be published after completion of the document verification. List No.3 dated 24.02.2025 made no reference to the Kalyan Karnataka cadre selection and List No.4 dated 06.03.2025 included name of respondent No.5 overlooking the merit and candidature of the petitioner, who had secured marks higher than the respondent No.5 and also had experience as required. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR Aggrieved by the provisional select list on 06.03.2025, petitioner submitted objections on 10.03.2025 to respondent No.2, requesting reconsideration of his candidature, emphasizing that he had scored higher marks than respondent No.5 and even fulfilled the prescribed experience requirement, merit in selection.
6. Respondent No.4 issued notice dated 15.03.2025 to the petitioner, wherein paragraph 3, it is stated that petitioner had initially submitted experience certificate only for 4 years 4 months and he had submitted the additional experience certificate by visiting the office on 13.03.2025. That to verify the authenticity of the document, he was instructed to submit the salary slips, bank transaction records and Form No.16 for the said period from May, 2015 to February, 2016. As such, he was called upon to submit the said document.
7. Thereafter, on 26.03.2025, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order which revealed that respondent No.5 who had scored 140 marks was selected -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR for the post of the Assistant Manager (Technical) Group-B in Kalyan Karnataka Cadre, while the petitioner who was superior in his performance having scored 151 marks was not considered. Respondent No.2 issued endorsement dated 26.03.2025 stating that the candidature of petitioner could not be considered for the said post as he had only 4 years 4 months of experience. Dissatisfied with the final selection list and endorsement petitioner submitted another representation dated 19.03.2025. Non- consideration of the same has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court through the records submits that as regard to eligibility criteria, petitioner has fulfilled the requirement of education qualification. That he has also scored 151 marks in the competitive exam. Even the second criteria of having 5 years of experience in the respective field preferably in the PSEs has also been fulfilled by the petitioner. He takes this Court through the -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR documents, more particularly Annexure-E series which consists of certificates which already referred to above. He submits that these certificates indicate petitioner possessing required experience to fulfill the eligibility criteria. He submits that the respondent-appointing authority has erred in not taking into consideration the certificate of completion of course issued by Jspiders which indicates petitioner having undergone Java training and Development which also falls within the ambit of 'experience'.
9. In support of this contention, he relies upon the order of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan dated 08.12.2009 passed in Civil W.P.No.3229/2009 and batch of writ petitions in the case of Surajmal Jat & Ors. vs. State & Anr. Referring to page No.12 of the said order, he submits that the training undergone by the candidate would also amount to gaining experience.
10. Referring to the notice dated 24.12.2024 produced at Annexure-C, learned counsel insists that in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR the recruitment notification that was issued, the criteria for appointment was only education qualification and the certificate of 5 years of minimum experience. However in the notice there is an additional condition imposed wherein the petitioner was called upon to submit Form-16/salary slip for corresponding 5 years of experience, which amounts to change of the rules after the process of selection is on. Therefore, he submits that vitiates the entire selection process.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Kumar Bar Das vs. Utkal University, reported in 1999 AIR SC 669, to contend that even if there is any shortage in the duration of experience, the same shall also not be the ground to reject the candidature. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.
12. In response, the learned counsel Sri Amaresh S.Roja, appearing for respondent No.4 submit that the case of the petitioner has been considered and scrutinized
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR carefully and since the certificate of experience furnished by the petitioner at Annexure-E series were not meeting the requirement of he having completed experience of 5 years, the same were not acceded to. He submits that the petitioner has fallen short of his experience of 5 years and though an opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit the documents satisfying the criteria of he having had the experience of 5 years, he has not utilized the said opportunity. Therefore, the candidature of petitioner could not be considered.
13. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 on the other hand submits that petitioner who has not been successful in the selection for want of eligibility criteria cannot question the selection of respondent No.5. He further submits that the recruiting authorities are at liberty to satisfy themselves with regard to the documents that would be submitted by the candidate and in this regard, it is open for them to ask for the additional records. Such requirement is only in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR furtherance to the qualification/conditions of eligible enumerated in the notification, the same would not amount to change of conditions.
14. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another - (2008) 3 SCC 512 as well as in the case of Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited vs Smt. H. L. Kaveri and others in Civil Appeal No.344/2020 decided on 21.01.2020. He further submits that the petitioner has not made out any case for consideration. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.
15. Heard. Perused the records.
16. There is no dispute or challenge to the notification and the conditions enumerated therein prescribing the eligibility criteria for the post called for. The eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Manager Technical Group B, as noted above is as under:-
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250
WP No. 201077 of 2025
HC-KAR
a) An Engineering degree with
electronics/Computer Science/Information
Technology/ Information Science/Electronic
and Communication and any other IT related Engineering Course from any recognized University;
b) Minimum 5 years of experience in respective field preferably in PSEs.
17. The issue in this petition is only revolving around the petitioner fulfilling the requirement of he having the minimum 05 years experience in the respective field preferably PSEs.
18. The petitioner has apparently submitted that experience certificate at Annexure-E series, which are as under:-
1. Telesoft (2 years, 8 months);
2. Quikr (8 months);
3. Eduskills (1 year, 1 month and 10 days);
4. Knowx (10 months); and
5. Jspiders (6 months, 7 days).
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR
19. Thereafter, on 15.03.2025 petitioner submitted the additional experience certificate purportedly issued by certain KNOUX which is produced at page Nos.42 and 43 of the writ petition. On consideration of the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner, a notice dated 15.03.2025 was issued to the petitioner wherein it is mentioned that though in the objection statement petitioner had claimed that he had experience of 5 years, but he had submitted documents only for the period of 4 years 4 months. The said documents required verification of their authenticity. In this regard petitioner was called upon to submit his salary slip for the period between May, 2015 and February, 2016 and the bank account statement for the period between May, 2015 and February, 2016 and Form-16 for the period between April, 2015 and March, 2016 on or before 05.30 p.m. of 17.03.2025. Upon consideration of the documents furnished by the petitioner, a communication dated 26.03.2025 came to be issued by the respondent - Appointing Authority as per
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR Annexure-N, giving the tabulation of period of his experience, based on the documents furnished by him which is as under:
Sl. Name of the From To Total
No. Company Experience
(year & Month)
1 Telesoft May-2016 Dec-2018 2 years 8
months
2 Quikr 25th Feb 2019 24th Oct 8 months
2019
3 EduSkills 1st July 2020 30th June 1 year
2021
Total Experience 4 years
4 months
20. Having thus found the experience certificate furnished by the petitioner fallen short of the required period of 5 years, his candidature was declined.
21. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is error in the calculation wherein the respondent - authorities have taken only 4 years 4 months while the documents submitted by the petitioner would qualify period for 4 years 11 months 17 days. He further contented that respondent - authority has not taken into consideration the certificate of completion
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR issued by Jspiders Java Training and Development Center. It is his case that even the "training" undergone by the candidate should be construed as an experience. Alternatively, it is contended that even if there is any shortfall in the period of experience, the same shall be overlooked in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Kumar Bar Das vs. Utkal University (supra).
22. That there is no dispute that the calculation made by the respondent No.4-Authority is based on the certificates furnished by the petitioner. As he had not furnished two certificates issued by KNOUX dated 10.03.2016 and 17.03.2025 at the initial submission of his experience certificates, the respondent No.4-Authority had naturally for satisfying of the authenticity of said documents called upon the petitioner to furnish the salary details.
23. As seen in the certificate issued by EduSkills dated 08.03.2025, the petitioner is shown to have been
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR paid a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. While in the certificate dated 17.03.2025 furnished for the period between May 2015 to February 2016, his salary is shown as Rs.8,000/- per month. The experience certificate of a KNOUX is dated 10.03.2016 and the salary details for the said period is shown in the document at page No.43 which is dated 17.03.2025. Due to this discrepancy the respondent No.4-Authority has not found reliability in the said documents.
24. As regards the contention of non consideration of the "training" certificate and reliance placed onto the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, this Court is of the considered view that the same is of no avail. The exposition of the term "experience" in the said judgment does not relate to the "training" undergone by a candidate.
25. Reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Kumar Bar Das (supra) for granting
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR concession to the experience is also of no avail inasmuch as the facts involved in the said case is different from the facts involved in the present case. In the said case, the issue was with relation to appointment of Professor in Research Academy as Professor, which required teaching /research experience of 10 years.
26. In any event, even according to petitioner, excluding the certificate issued by KNOUX, he has fallen short of required experience for the period of 5 years. As such, no error can be found with the decision making process adopted by the respondent No.4-Appointing Authority.
27. The contention that the respondent-Authority had called upon to submit the Form 16 and Salary Slip after commencement of selection process amounting to change of Recruitment Rules also has no basis inasmuch as the said requirement is only to verify the experience certificates already produced by the petitioner and not changing the basic eligibility criteria.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7250 WP No. 201077 of 2025 HC-KAR
28. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, this Court do not find any merits in the case and same is dismissed.
In view of disposal of petition, if any pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, they are dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE SN/KJJ/SWK/SDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 CT:PK