Karnataka High Court
WA/977/2026 of AJITHA KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 2 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:25810-DB WA No. 977 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 977 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. AJITHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 977 OF 2026 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
AJITHA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O SUBRAYA ACHARI
R/AT HOUSE NO.1/3,
28 HALADY POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 222
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BOLA VEDVYAS SHENOY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
2.
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
P.B.NO.5074, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
3.
THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560012.
REPT. BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
4.
MS. HARSHITHA H.R.
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
AGED MAJOR
D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA P
OPP. SBI, TAVAREKERE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN-577 2131.
5.
SRI. HAJARESAB YALIGAR
AGED MAJOR
S/O SHARIFSAB GUDENAKATTI,
KUNDGOL TALUK
DHARWAD DISTRICT 581 113
6.
SRI. GURURAJ A
AGED MAJOR
S/O ADIRAJU A.S.
1ST CROSS, HOYSALA BEEDI NEHRUNAGAR,
SRI. VEERABADRESHWARA NILAYA
BELUR-573 115
HASSAN DISTRICT
7.
MS. ANNAPOORNA BADIGERA,
D/O LINGAPPA
R/AT 1ST FLOOR, POWER BUILDING
CHAROOS GALLI, OPP. OLD APMC SAVADATTI ROAD, DHARWAD-580 001
R4 TO R7 WORKING AS COMPUTER OPERATORS
C/O KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA FOR SRI. N.K.RAMESH., ADVOCATE
FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER
DATED 18/02/026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WP
NO.27318/2024
AND
CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW
WP
NO.27318/2024, ETC.
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
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 18.02.2026 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.27318/2024 filed by the appellant herein.
2. The appellant/petitioner was an applicant for the post of Computer Operator under Category 2A (Rural) for recruitment in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat for the year 2022. After the selection process, the merit list was published and one Smt. Harshita H.R., who claimed reservation under Category 2A, secured 58.75 marks, whereas the appellant/petitioner, who also claimed reservation under Category 2A (Rural) secured 57.75% marks. Smt. Harshita H.R., being more meritorious was selected for the post of Computer Operator. The appellant/petitioner filed a writ petition contending that Smt. Harshita H.R., should have been shifted to women category and as a result thereof the
HC-KAR
appellant/petitioner ought to have been offered the appointment under Category 2A (Rural).
3. We find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner. When Smt. Harshita H.R., has claimed reservation under Category 2A and she has ranked first in the merit list, she has rightly been offered appointment under Category 2A. Now, the appellant/petitioner cannot claim that a higher-ranked candidate above him should be shifted to some other category for which there is no claim by such candidate to that other category. We, therefore, find no substance in this appeal and find no error in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20