Karnataka High Court
WA/1945/2026 of CHAMUNDESHWARI, Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 29 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010561312026 NC: 2026:KHC:54243-DB WA No. 1945 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1945 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1945 OF 2026 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
CHAMUNDESHWARI,
W/O DILIPKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MAHESHNAGAR,
NEAR GUMPA,
BIDAR-43
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BOLA VEDVYAS SHENOY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY
BENGALURU-560 001
2.
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
P.B.NO.5074,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3.
C. YASHWANTH NAIK,
S/O E. CHANDRA
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
AGED MAJOR
4.
MANJUNATHAYYA LINGAYYA GURUVIN,
S/O, LINGAIAH GURUVIN
AGED MAJOR
5.
SHARIF SAAB
S/O SIKANDRABABA,
AGED MAJOR
6.
JAFFAR
S/O CHANDPASHA
AGED MAJOR
7.
ASHA H. G.,
D/O GURUSIDDAPPA H.
AGED MAJOR
8.
VIJAYALAKSHMI
D/O BASAPPA
AGED MAJOR
9.
MURTHY,
S/O AMBAMMA
AGED MAJOR
10.
MANJUNATHA
S/O ANJANEYA VATAPARAVI
AGED MAJOR
11.
SHIVALEELA
W/O GUNAIAH HIREMATH
AGED MAJOR
12.
POOJA,
W/O PAVAN KUMAR
AGED MAJOR
13.
JOOTHI,
D/O ERAPPA NALATWAD,
HC-KAR
AGED MAJOR
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 13
WORKING AS DALAYAT
C/O KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
SECRETARIAT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
14.
KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560012
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AKSHAY R HUDDAR FOR C/R11 AND 12 IN
CP 17525/2026;
SRI. N.K.RAMESH FOR R14;
SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI .D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR FOR R13)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER
DATED 10.07.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP No.6333/2025 (S-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW WP
No.6333/2025 (S-RES), ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
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 JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present intra-court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 10.07.2026 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.6333/2025 filed by the petitioner.
2. The appellant/petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Dalayath (Attender) pursuant to the notification dated 26.04.2022 issued by the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly inviting applications for various posts, including the post of Dalayath (Attender).
3. The appellant/petitioner submitted her application along with the requisite documents. She initially claimed the benefit of reservation under Category III-B (Other Backward Classes). However, there was no
HC-KAR
post reserved for candidates belonging to Category III-B. The appellant/petitioner had secured 37.5 marks on an average in the General Merit list.
4. The contention of the appellant/petitioner is that, in the absence of a post reserved for Category (III- B), her candidature ought to have been considered against the post reserved for General (Women). However, the upper age limit for candidates under the General (Women) was 35 years, whereas the appellant/petitioner had already crossed the age of 35 years as on the last date prescribed for submission of application. The further contention of the appellant/petitioner is that, if she could not be considered against the post meant for Category III- B, she should have been considered against the General category. This contention also cannot be accepted, as the upper age limit for candidates belonging to the General category was also 35 years.
HC-KAR
5. The appellant/petitioner, having crossed the prescribed age limit, was therefore ineligible for consideration against the General category irrespective of securing higher marks.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
SD/- (H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN) JUDGE
RKA CT:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10