EKAMBARANATH S/O MAHANTHAYYA SWAMY AND ORS vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 201849 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. EKAMBARANATH S/O MAHANTHAYYA SWAMY,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: CIVIL HEAD CONSTABLE-108,
CEN POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
H.NO. 12-6-1237,
SOMANATH TEMPLE LBS NAGAR,
RAICHUR-584101.
2. KRISTAYYA S/O KRISTAPPA,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC:CIVIL HEAD CONSTABLE-49,
AT YERAGERA POLICE STATION,
R/O. YAPALADINNI VILLAGE-584102,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
3. K. PRABHU S/O NARASAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE-10,
GABBUR POLICE STATION,
R/O. YEGANOOR,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
4. AMARESH DAND S/O MALLAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO. 248,
SHAKTINAGAR POLICE STATION,
R/O. H.NO. 13-7-328,
YARAMARUS DANDU,
RAICHUR-584102.
5. RAGHAVENDRA S/O BOODEPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE,
GABBUR POLICE STATION,
R/O. SULTANPUR, TQ. DEODURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584103.
6. JINDAVALI S/O HUSENAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO. 211,
IN DEODURGA POLICE STATION,
R/O YAPALADINNI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584102.
7. BANDAYYA S/O BASAYYA
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO. 259,
GABBUR POLICE STATION,
R/O KUDLOOR VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. YADAGIRI-584201.
8. NAGARAJ S/O VENKAPPA,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO. 250,
IN LINGASUGUR POLICE STATION,
R/O. MAHANTA NAGAR AREA HUTTI TOWN,
TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584103.
9. MUNISWAMY S/O NALLAPPA,
AGE:41 YEARS, OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO.316,
IN SHAKTINAGAR POLICE STATION,
R/O J.MEERAPUR POST EMBERAL
TQ. AND DIST.RAICHUR-584101.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
10. H. SHIVARAM S/O E. HUSSAINAPPA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE,
IN YERAGERA POLICE STATION,
R/O H.NO.8-1-55, AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
HARIJANAWAD, RAICHUR-584102.
11. KARIBASAPPA S/O EARAPPA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO.162,
CEN POLICE STATION, RAICHUR-584101.
12. RAGHAVENDRA S/O KRISATAPPA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO.119,
IN WEST POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
R/O H.NO.1-4-1492/85, MARUTHI NAGAR,
RAICHUR - 584101.
13. MALLESH S/O DURUGAPPA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE
IN YERAGARA POLICE STATION,
R/O. PANCHAMUKHI NILAYA, BABJI LAYOUT
ASHAPUR ROAD, RAICHUR-584104.
14. RAMAPPA S/O LINGAPPA,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE IN STATE INTELLIGENCE,
R/O. VADLOOR,
TQ. AND DIST.RAICHUR-584103.
15. RAMANNA KARAJAGI S/O VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO.70
IN CB STATION DPO RAICHUR,
BEHIND SARVODAYA SCHOOL,
K.V.NAGAR, SINDHANOOR,
DIST.RAICHUR-584102.
16. MAREGOUDA PATIL S/O CHANNABASANA
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE IN
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
YERAGERA POLICE STATION,
R/O H.NO.51, SAJJALSRI NILAYA,
MALLIKARJUN LAYOUT, ASHAPUR ROAD,
RAICHUR-584103.
17. VENKATESH S/O EARANNA,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO.71
IN RAICHUR RURAL POLICE STATION,
AT NEERA MANVI, TQ. MANVI,
DIST. RAICHUR-584102.
18. CHANDAPRAKASH SHETTY S/O SHETTY EARNNA,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO.61
IN YAPPALDINNI POLICE STATION,
R/O VIDYAGIRI NEAR KAKATIYA SCHOOL,
MANVI, TQ.MANVI,
DIST.RAICHUR-584401.
19. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O BASAPPA H,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO.369 IN
S.B. POLICE STATION RAICHUR,
R/O H.NO.8-11-184/341,
KRISHNADEVARAYA COLONY,
RAICHUR-584103.
20. K. VENKATESHWAR S/O BASAVARAJ,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO.14 IN
BALAGANOOR POLICE STATION,
R/O NEAR CHANNABASAVESHWAR
PATELWADI, WARD NO.2,
TEMPLE, SIDHANOOR,
DIST.RAICHUR-585101.
21. AYYANNA S/O NARAYAN,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO.44,
IN WOMEN POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
R/O H.NO. 31/11, NEWJATTILINE
HUTTI GOLD MINES, HUTTI,
TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
22. MANJUNATH SINGH S/O SHESHURAM SINGH,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE IN
RURAL POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
R/O H.NO. 8-11-181/838,
VIDYA NAGAR, RAICHUR- 584101.
23. SIDDARADDI S/O AMARAPPA,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 635
IN BALAGANOOR POLICE STATION,
R/O ANWAR VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR- 584 101.
24. SHIVARAJAPPA S/O HANUMANTAPPA,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 637
IN TURVIHAL POLICE STATION,
R/O NEAR VEERABHADRESHWAR TEMPLE,
HIREDINNI TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR 584102.
25. BASANGOUDA S/O AYYANGOUDA,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 646
IN RURAL POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
R/O CHILKARAI POST. BENCHAMARADI,
TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR- 584 101.
26. SHAIKH KALIMULLA HUSSENI
S/O SHAIK IMAMUDDIN,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE,
IN YERAGERA POLICE STATION,
R/O H.NO. 12-6-385/168
VISHWANATH COLONY, RAICHUR -584 104.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
27. MOHD. RAFI S/O GAFOROSAB,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 643
IN WEST POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
R/O COURT TALAR TIPPU, SULTAN ROAD,
RAICHUR- 584 101.
28. DAKAPPA S/O HANMANTHPPA,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 391
IN YAPPALDINNI POLICE STATION,
R/O H.NO. 11-66/IE/16
DOLLARS COLONY RAICHUR- 584 101.
29. RUDRAPPA S/O SHIVAREDDEPPA,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 683 IN
CEN POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
R/O BEVINOOR POST MACHANOOR,
TQ. SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR- 584 101.
30. VEERESH S/O AYYANNA,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 688
IN SHAKTHI NAGAR POLICE STATION,
R/O AT B GANEKAL TQ. DEODURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR- 584 103.
31. DASAMAYYA S/O NAGANNA,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 588
IN SHAKTHI NAGAR, POLICE STATION,
H.NO. 6-2-139/282 MANIKNAGAR,
RAICHUR- 584 101.
32. AMARAPPA S/O SHARANAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 521
IN RAICHUR, TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
R/O EACHANAL TANDA, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR- 584 102.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
33. SHANKRAPPA S/O SAWAREPPA,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 83
IN YAPALADINNI POLICE STATION,
NEAR AMBEDKAR BHAVANA GABBUR,
TQ. DEODURGA, DIST. RAICHUR- 584 101.
34. THOTAPPA S/O BASAVARAJAPPA GOWDA,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC” POLICE CONSTABLE,
IN GESCOM POLICE STATION,
AT BAGALWAD TQ. SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR.
35. TIPPANNA S/O MANTAPPA,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 321
IN TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
R/O H.NO. 6/15 HUTTI GOLD MINES,
HUTTI CAMP HUTTI TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR- 584 105.
36. NAGARAJ S/O MALLAPPA,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 254
IN POLICE STATION SHAKTHINAGAR,
R/O H.NO. 12-6-700/4, ALLAMAPRABHU COLONY,
RAICHUR- 584 101.
37. SIDDALINGAPPA S/O NAGAPPA,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 16
POLICE STATION SHAKTHINAGAR,
AT MANSLAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR- 584 102.
38. HUSENAPPA S/O BHEEMAYYA,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 503
IN POLICE STATION RAICHUR RURAL
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
AT KUDLOOR VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR- 584 101.
39. VIJAY KUMAR S/O PAMPANNA,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 60
IN POLICE STATION TOWN SINDHANUR,
SRIKRISHNADDEVARAYA COLONY,
BOLAMANADODDI RAICHUR- 584 102.
40. MALLIKARJUN S/O MAREPPA,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 482
IN POLICE STATION RAICHUR RURAL,
NEAR AGASI KONAPURPET MANVI,
DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
41. BALARAMSINGH S/O SURESHSINGH,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 589,
IN POLICE STATION MARKET YARD,
AT KURDI VILLAGE,
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR- 584 101.
42. HANUMANTHA S/O YANKAPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 01
IN POLICE STATION, MUDGAL,
AT DEVEBOPUR TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR- 584101.
43. RAMESH S/O HANUMANTHU,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 206
IN POLICE STATION SHAKTHINAGAR,
AT YAPALADINNI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
44. REVANASIDDAPPA S/O BAKKAPPA,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 697
IN POLICE STATION BALAGANOOR,
POLICE QTRS, BALAGANOOR,
TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR- 584 102.
45. PAMPAPATI S/O DODDABASAPPA,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 50
IN POLICE STATION MASKI, AT MAKAPUR,
TQ. LINGASUGUR,
RAICHUR- 584 101.
46. SANGANGOUDA
S/O SANNABASANAGOUDA,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 458
IN POLICE STATION, YAPALADINNI AT MERANAL,
TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR- 584 101.
47. MAHESH S/O MALLAPPA,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 25
IN POLICE STATION SIRWAR,
AT GAVIGATTA VILLAGE,
TQ. MANVI,
DIST. RAICHUR- 584 101.
48. MALLIKARJUNA S/O SHARANAPPA,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO.142
IN POLICE STATION GESCOM,
AT GUDUR VILLAGE,
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR- 584 105.
49. HUSAIN BASHA S/O HUCHCHABUDDA,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO.283
POLICE STATION MUDGAL,
AT POTNAL VILLAGE,
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR- 584 101.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
50. ANAND S/O SHIVAPPA,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 90
IN POLICE STATION YAPALADINNI,
R/O H.NO. 8-2-96 IQBAL NAGAR,
GAJAGARPET RAICHUR- 584 102.
51. AMARESH TOTAD S/O DEVAPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 425
IN POLICE STATION MASKI,
AT ARYABHOGAPUR, POST MAKAPUR,
TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR- 584 101.
52. TIPPANNA ELIGER S/O RAMAPPA
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 324
IN POLICE STATION TURVIHAL,
AT MULLURU EJ, TQ. SINDHANOOR,
DIST. RAICHUR- 584 102.
53. RAJAPPA S/O VENKAPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO.
IN POLICE STATION ACB RAICHUR,
AT ALKOD TANDA, POST ALKOD TQ. DEODURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR- 584 101.
54. EARESH S/O HANUMANTARAO,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 276
IN POLICE STATION DEODURGA,
AT ASKIHAL VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR- 584 105.
55. SHIVARAJ S/O MALLANNA,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 215
IN POLICE STATION MARKET YARD,
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
AT NAGARAGUND VILLAGE,
TQ. DEODURGA, DIST. RAICHUR- 584 101.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
ROOM NO. 222, IIND FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NO.2 POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU- 01.
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
BALLARI RANGE, BALLARI- 583102.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
RAICHUR- 584101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,
A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
KALABURAGI DATED 29.03.2022 IN
APPLICATION NO. 20222 TO 20276
OF 2021, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-
C, CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING
THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE ORDER
NO. DATED
¹§âA¢ü(1) PÉJ¸ïJn-2/2021-22
16.06.2022 WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE- D AND ALSO QUASH
THE DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULAR
VIDE NO.89(B)/EST-4/2013-14
DATED 18.03.2014 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO. 2 WHICH IS AS
ANNEXURE- A7.
B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
GIVE PROMOTION AND FIX THE
SENIORITY OF THE PETITIONERS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 371(J)
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND
CONSEQUENTLY, GIVE PROMOTION
TO THEIR HIGHER CADRE WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
C) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER
AS DEEMED FIT BY THE HON’BLE
COURT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
The petitioners filed this petition challenging the
order dated 29.03.2022 passed in Application Nos.20222
to 20276 of 2021 by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Kalaburagi (‘ Tribunal ’ for short).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ
petition are as follows:
2.1. The petitioners are the permanent residents of
their all of their respective places and all of them belong to
the Hyderabad-Karnataka region (‘ H-K region ’ for short),
which is now being called as Kalyana Karnataka region. All
the petitioners have been appointed as Civil Police
Constables in the respective years. Since the date of their
appointments, all of them have been working in the
District of Raichur. Petitioner Nos.1 to 22 have been
promoted as Head Constables, however not under the
quota of H-K region. There has been amendment to the
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
Constitution of India by inserting Article 371J and the
same came into force on 01.10.2013 and the said
amendment was notified on 06.11.2013. By virtue of the
said amendment, the petitioners got the protection of
Article 371J of the Constitution. Under the said Article, the
right guaranteed vests with every citizen whose case or
claims fall under Article 371J of the Constitution. The said
Article was inserted to extend the benefits and to promote
the people of Kalyana Karnataka region socially,
economically and educationally. Reservations have been
provided in the appointments, education as well as in
respect of promotions too. It is contended that, there
cannot be any agreement or waiving of rights as against
any statute let alone guarantee given under the
Constitution. The respondents issued circulars calling upon
the petitioners to give option of claiming the local cadre or
residuary cadre. It is contended that, the said circulars are
contrary to the constitutional guarantee granted under
Article 371J. The petitioners have filed applications before
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
the Tribunal seeking directions to the respondents to give
promotion and fix the seniority of the petitioners in
accordance with Article 371J of the Constitution.
Accordingly, pray to allow the application.
2.2. State had filed a reply before the Tribunal
contending that, though the petitioners belong to region, it
would be inappropriate to force all of them to work in H-K
region and for this precise reason, options were called for
from such of those interested persons, who are living both
outside as well as inside the H-K region to avail of
reservation provided under the provisions of Article 371J
of the Constitution. A free choice has been given to the
employees belonging to this region to serve the State
either in the H-K region or non – H-K region. As such,
nobody has been denied the opportunity of exercising their
option at any stage of the process. With a view to protect
the interest of the persons belonging to the H-K region,
Government has stipulated different quotas for both local
cadre and residual cadre and insofar as Group-B posts are
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
concerned, 80% vacancies are earmarked for local cadre
and 20% in respect of residual cadre. An opportunity was
provided to all the concerned employees belonging to H-K
region to submit their option within 30 days from the date
of issuance of the notification and such of those who did
not exercise their choice were not included in the H-K
region. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the applications.
2.3. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel
for the parties, disposed of the applications with a
direction to the respondents to consider the
representations filed by the applicants/petitioners on
11.08.2020 and to issue suitable orders in accordance with
law.
3. The petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal in Application Nos.20222-
20276 of 2021, filed this writ petition.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. P.Vilas Kumar,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that, any agreement will not be
binding on the employees. He submits that, the statute
has to prevail upon the agreement and any agreement
executed is void. He submits that, guarantee is extended
to the people of this region by Article 371J and
reservations have been provided to the people of this
region by an amendment to the Constitution by inserting
Article 371J. He submits that, the option will not take the
right granted under the Constitution. He further submits
that, the juniors have been promoted and that, the local
cadre must be given a reservation and residual cadre
based on consent. He submits that the petitioners belong
to the H-K region. He submits that, by way of a circular,
the Department is asking for an option which is against
the constitutional right. Not giving consent does not
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
amount to a waiver of Constitutional rights and consent
amounts to a waiver. To buttress his arguments, he has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court
in the case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. Amal
1
Kumar Sen and Others , judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the cases of The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and
2
Another Vs. A. J. Rana and Others , Maya Banerjee
3
Vs. Union of India and Others and Union of India
4
and Others Vs. Bali Ram No. 850808321 . He submits
that, the constitutional rights cannot be forgiven
voluntarily which is not permissible. To buttress this
submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mahendra Prasad
5
Agarwal Vs. Arvind Kumar Singh and Others . He
submits that, the words ‘consider jurisprudence’ have
routinely adopted these days and he submits that, the
1
MANU/WB/0382/1987
2
AIR 1972 SC 591
3
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1928
4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1319
5
2026 SCC OnLine SC 302
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
constitutional or statutory remedies are not intended for
academic disclosure; if the petitioner deserves a relief, it
must be granted then and there. Hence, he submits that
the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and
erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow
the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondents submits that, the petitioners
have submitted a representation dated 11.08.2020 vide
Annexure-A6, making a request to the respondents to give
promotions to their higher cadre with all consequential
benefits, and the respondents have already issued the
endorsement dated 16.06.2022 vide Annexure-D. She
submits that, the petitioners have not challenged the
endorsement dated 16.06.2022. The said endorsement
has attained finality. She further submits that, the
Constitution was amended by way of the Constitution
(Ninety-eighth Amendment) Act, 2012, with effect from
01.10.2013 by insertion of Article 371J. Pursuant to the
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
insertion of Article 371J, an order was passed by the State
i.e., Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in
appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order,
2013 (‘ Order of 2013 ’ for short), and a circular was
issued dated 18.03.2014 for implementation of Article
371J of the Constitution. By the impugned circular dated
18.03.2014, instructions have been issued, whereas the
Units of Police Department are divided into three
categories. She further submits that, the petitioners have
not challenged the Karnataka Public Employment
(Reservation in appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka
Region) (Issue of Eligibility Certificates) Rules, 2013.
According to Rule 10 of the said Rules, the Government
may, from time to time, issue necessary clarification in the
matters of interpretation of the provisions of the order or
these Rules. She submits that, the Order of 2013 was
published vide gazette notification dated 06.11.2013. The
petitioners did not challenge the Order of 2013. She
submits that, Order 4 provides that, the local persons may
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
be given an opportunity to opt for being allotted to the
local cadre and may be allotted to the local cadres in the
Region; any person aggrieved by an order allotting him to
the local cadre, may submit a representation to the State
Government within a period of 60 days from the date of
communication of the order. By following the Order 4, the
impugned circular was issued. She submits that, the
Tribunal has considered the entire material placed on
record and rightly passed the impugned order. She further
submits that, the Tribunal has issued a direction to the
respondents to consider the representation dated
11.08.2020 and pursuant to the order passed in the said
application, the respondents have already issued an
endorsement dated 16.06.2022 vide Annexure-D and the
petitioners have not challenged the endorsement vide
Annexure-D. Hence, on these grounds she submits that,
the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable
and prays to dismiss the writ petition.
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
7. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners
were appointed as Police Constables and they are the
residents of H-K region. Since the date of their
appointments, they are working in the district of Raichur.
Petitioner Nos.1 to 22 were promoted as Head Constables,
but they are promoted under the non-H-K region quota.
The Central Government, by way of amendment to the
Constitution, inserted Article 371J, the same was came
into force on 01.10.2013, and the said amendment was
notified on 06.11.2013. By way of amendment to the
Constitution, reservations were made to the H-K region
insofar as educational and vocational training institutions
in the H-K region, and the same provides for identification
of posts or classes of posts under the State Government
and in any body or organization under the control of the
State Government in the H-K region and a reservation of a
proportion of such posts for the persons who belong to
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
that region by birth or by domicile and for appointment
thereto by direct recruitment or by promotion or in any
other manner as may be specified in the order.
9. By exercising the power conferred by clause 2
of the Order of 2013, the Governor of Karnataka made the
Order of 2013. The said order was published in Karnataka
Gazette dated 06.11.2013. From the perusal of the order,
the word ‘local cadre’ is defined in Order 2(e), which
means any local cadre under the State Government or any
local authority or body or organization organized in
pursuance of paragraph 3. ‘Local person’ is defined in
Order 2(f) as local person in relation to any local area
means a person who qualifies under paragraph 6 as a local
person in relation to such local area. According to Order
2(h), ‘Region’ or ‘Hyderabad-Karnataka region’ shall
comprise of Revenue Districts of Bidar, Gulbarga, Raichur,
Kapal, Yadgir and Ballari Districts. As per Order 4 which
provides for allotment of persons, (1) persons holding the
posts required to be organized into local cadres, shall be
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
allotted to such cadres by the State Government or any
officer or authority authorized by it in this behalf in
accordance with the principles and procedures hereinafter
specified and in accordance with the rules notified by the
Government; (2) the local persons may be given an
opportunity to opt for being allotted to the local cadre and
may be allotted to the local cadres in the region.
10. Pursuant to the Order of 2013, the impugned
circular dated 18.09.2014 came to be issued. According to
the said circular, the units in the Police Department are
divided into three categories. The said circular has been
issued by the Government as per Order 10 of the Order of
2013.
11. The petitioners have not challenged the Order
of 2013. The Government has issued several
notifications/circulars under the Order of 2013. The
petitioners have not challenged any other orders/circulars,
except the impugned circular dated 18.03.2014. Learned
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
Senior Counsel for the petitioners could not point out how
the impugned circular issued by the Government is
contrary to the spirit of Article 371J of the Constitution.
The said circular was issued in 2014 and the petitioners
have submitted a representation on 11.08.2020. The
petitioners have kept quiet for more than 7 years. The
petitioners having accepted the circular dated 18.03.2014,
filed the application before the Tribunal in the year 2021.
The Tribunal has recorded its finding that, unless an option
is exercised, the reservation will become futile as it is not
possible to provide opportunity to the employees of the H-
K region just because they belong to H-K region, and held
that, the question of holding the impugned circular as
illegal and invalid, would not arise. The Tribunal has
disposed of the application directing the respondents to
consider the representations of the petitioners. The
respondents have issued an endorsement dated
16.06.2022 vide Annexure-D. The petitioners have
annexed the endorsement to the Memorandum of writ
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
petition, however, have not challenged the same. The
order of the Tribunal has been complied with by the
respondents. Unless the petitioner challenges the order of
2013, the petitioner cannot challenge the circular dated
18.03.2014. The Tribunal has rightly considered the entire
submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners and rightly passed the impugned order.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court
in the case of Amal Kumar Sen (supra). In the said
judgment, the Calcutta High Court has held in paragraph
No.5 as follows:
5. As we have already noted, Art. 38 mandates the
“State” to secure and protect “Social Justice” and as
would be evident from the definition of the expression
“State” in Art. 36 read with Art. 12 of the Constitution,
and as has been pointed out by Sri Mathew, J., in
Kesavananda Bharati case [(1974) 3 SCC 154 : A.I.R.
1973 S.C. 1401], all the organs of the State, including
the Judiciary, are under the Constitutional obligation to
secure, protect and administer “Social Justice.” This being
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
our Constitutional ethos, the least the Judiciary can do is
to evolve a new jurisprudence, a new consequential
juristic principle to be applied to our forensic adjudicatory
process, to ensure administration and advancement of
“Social Justice.” Commenting on the system of trial that
is operating in India known as “Adversary System of
Trial,” Justice Sri Krishna Iyer has once observed thus,
though extrajudicially in a paper presented to the Third
International Conference of Appellate Judges in New Delhi
in 1984:
“Adversarial process is gladiatorial justice: the
strong win the bout, the weak lose it with punched
nose, bleeding face and broken head. The (robed)
umpire is uninterested in the justice of the cause
but forbids violation of the boxing rules (called law)
and there ends his duty. This neatly fits into the
capitalistic ethic of industrialist and worker fighting
without any special consideration for the weaker
party, the bonded serf and the feudal chief
disputing in a far-off Court equally free to bring
lawyers. Both have equal chance and if might
proves itself right because of uneven fight, the
Judge says the system is that and he is apart of the
system. Is the proletariat equal in the contest to
the proprietariat in presenting, proving and
processing the rival cases right upto the forensic
apex? Is the poor debtor as against the
moneylender, the prisoner as against the jailor, the
handicapped as against the hefty, the deserted wife
as against the brutal husband, the low-caste parish
as against the high caste patrician, equal?” ”
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
Admittedly, in the case on hand, the Government has
published the Order of 2013 and the petitioners have not
challenged the same. The order passed by the
Government has attained finality.
12.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has
also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of A. J. Rana ( supra ). The Hon'ble Apex
Court has interpreted the word ‘consider’. The Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that, the word ‘consider’ means to fix
the mind upon with a view to careful examination; to
ponder; study; mediate upon, think or reflect with care.
There is no dispute in regard to the proposition laid down
by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the judgment referred supra .
12.2. Admittedly, in the instant case, the
respondents have considered the representation and
issued an endorsement vide Annexure-D.
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
12.3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has
also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Maya Banerjee (supra). The
judgment is pertaining to the issue relating to pension or
re-fixation of pay or pension. The judgment relied upon by
the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in Maya
Banerjee (supra) is not applicable to the case on hand.
He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Bali Ram No.850808321
(supra). From the perusal of the said judgment, the issue
involved in the said case is regarding grant of financial and
service benefits upon the invalidation from service.
Admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioners that their
services have been invalidated. Hence, the judgment
relied upon by the Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners in Bali Ram No.850808321 (supra) is not
applicable to the case on hand.
12.4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10730-DB
WP No. 201849 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030050732022
in the case of Mahendra Prasad Agarwal (supra),
wherein the Apex Court has dealt with the ‘consider
jurisprudence’ and reiterated the ratio laid down in the
case of A.J.Rana ( supra )
13. In view of the above discussion, we do not find
any error in the impugned order, and we decline to
interfere with the same. Accordingly, we proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is dismissed ;
ii. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
PA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
Ct:pk