Karnataka High Court
WP/49212/2016 of SRI MAHADEV Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 30 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010402162016 NC: 2026:KHC:55019 WP No. 49212 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 49212 OF 2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MAHADEV S/O LATE BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 49212 OF 2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI MAHADEV
S/O LATE BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS TAX INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
WARD NO.54, HOODI, MAHADEVAPURA
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE - 560 048
2.
SRI M RAMAKRISHNA
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS TAX INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
WARD NO.180, BANASANKARI
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE - 560 085
3.
SRI M GURU
S/O LATE S M MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS TAX INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
WARD NO.165, BANASANKARI
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE - 560 085
Digitally signed
by VIDYA G R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
4.
SRI VIJAYA
S/O RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS TAX INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF ASSITANT REVENUE OFFICER
WARD NO.166, KARISANDRA
BANASANKARI
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE - 560 085
5.
SRI K VENKATESH
S/O LATE KARIYA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS TAX INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
WARD NO.181, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
PADMANABHA NAGAR
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE - 560 070
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2.
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002
HC-KAR
3.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADIMINISTRATION)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANI M.A., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. B.S. GOUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS, QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 06.11.2013 CALL AS KARNATAKA PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT
(RESERVATION
IN
APPOINTMENT
FOR
HYDERABAD-KARNATAKA REGION) ORDER 2013 ISSUED BY
R-1 IN SO FAR AS RESERVING 8% POSTS IDENTIFIED FOR
PERSONS BELONGING TO HYDERABAD-KARNATAKA REGION)
FOR PROMOTION FROM THE CADRE OF TAX INSPECTOR TO
REVENUE
INSPECTOR
ENUMERATED
IN
PARA
13(J)
IS
CONCERNED IN BRUHATH BANGALORE MANAGARA PALIK R-2
CORPORATION IS CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.1.2014 ISSUED BY R-1
(ANENXURE-C & D) RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners have called in question validity of the order dated 06.11.2013 bearing No. DPAR 06 PLX 2012, called as Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 issued by respondent No.1, and insofar as it reserves 8% of the posts identified for persons belonging to Hyderabad-Karnataka region in the State level offices. A further challenge was made to the Circular dated 02.03.2016 at Annexure-A.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the relief sought for is no longer Res integra insofar as the Division Bench in the case of A. S. Vimalakshi and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others1 in Writ Appeal Nos.939-940/2019 disposed of on 06.08.2019 has upheld the validity of Annexure-A. 1 (2019) SCC Online KAR 1243
HC-KAR
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that matter may be disposed of in light of the order passed in the aforesaid Writ Appeal. The observations made at para 23 of the Writ Appeal Nos.939-940/2019, reads as follows: “23. As stated earlier, by paragraph-13 of the impugned Order, the Hon'ble Governor has provided for reservation of 8% of the posts in the State level offices or state level institutions. 8% reservation is provided, representing the population percentage of the said region in the total population of Karnataka. Thus, the reservation is provided in State level offices which are outside the said region. The exercise of power by Hon'ble Governor by providing reservation in paragraph 13 of the impugned order is fully and legally supported by sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J of the Constitution.”
4. In light of the same, the validity of the impugned orders cannot be revisited as having been upheld by virtue of the order in the Writ Appeal.
HC-KAR
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected taking note of the order passed in the Writ Appeal. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE SKS