GURURAJ SHETY G vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57867-DB
WP No. 24144 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010386772020




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT


AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 24144 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)


BETWEEN:

GURURAJ SHETTY G
S/O BASAVA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O GOLIANGADI, BELVE POST
KUNDAPUR TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576212.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATARAMANA K. S., ADV. (THROUGH VC))


AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
STATE AUDIT AND
ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU- 560 001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
UDYOGA SOUDHA
BENGALURU – 560001.

3. SHIVAKUMAR S S
S/O LATE BALENAHALLI SHIVANNA
SANNABIGARAHALLI
KOOTGAL PSOT









Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57867-DB
WP No. 24144 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010386772020


RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT
M REG. NO. 200389.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. DESHMUKH, AGA FOR R1
MISS. SINCHANA M.R., ADV. FOR R2)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORD
RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED SELECT LIST IN NO.E(1)3576/2017-
18/PSC DATED 17.10.2017 VIDE ANNX-A18 ISSUED BY R-2, IN SO
FAR AS PETITIONER AND R-3 IN SL.NO.13, PERUSAL AND SAME
DECLARE THE ORDER AN ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND SET ASIDE THE
SAME AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Heard learned counsel Sri.Venkataramana.K.S.,
through video conference, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel
Smt.Sinchana.M.R., for respondent No.2. Perused the
entire writ petition papers.

2. Learned counsel Sri.K.S.Venkataramana for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner was before the

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57867-DB
WP No. 24144 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010386772020


Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’) questioning the final select list of
Assistant Controller and Auditor Officers in the Department
of State Audit and Accounts Department published under
Notification dated 17.10.2017 (Annexure-A18). It is
submitted that the petitioner had applied for both the
posts of Assist Controller as well as Audit Officers which
are Group-A and Group-B posts respectively. The
petitioner applied under 3B Rural as well as Kannada
Medium Category. The petitioner is said to have secured
total marks of 444.50 marks in the written examination
conducted for the purpose of selection and appointment.
The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that 11
candidates have been disqualified at the stage of
documents verification and when those 11 candidates
were disqualified, other candidates ought to have been
added to the list of eligible candidates for interview. If that
process had been carried out, the petitioner had the
chance of interview.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57867-DB
WP No. 24144 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010386772020


3. Further, learned counsel would submit that the
reservation provided to Hyderabad Karnataka is more than
the prescribed percentage of 8%. As such, the posts
allotted to the Hyderabad Karnataka require to be
reduced. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that the conduct of main examination by allowing ineligible
persons is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Further, learned
counsel would submit that the Tribunal committed grave
error in not appreciating the contentions raised by the
petitioner and in dismissing the petitioner's Application.
Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ
petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel Smt.Sinchana.M.R.,
for respondent No. 2 – KPSC would submit that the
petitioner has secured marks of 444.50 in the written
examination and he has not qualified to be called for
interview under 3B Rural Kannada Medium. It is submitted
that the cutoff marks for 3B was 685 and moreover it is

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57867-DB
WP No. 24144 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010386772020


submitted that respondent No.3 has secured 708.5 marks
and is selected under the General Merit category. Further,
it is submitted that the cut-off marks for General Merit was
701. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner who has
secured only 444.50 marks is not near to selected
candidates either under 3B category or General Merit
category. As such, learned counsel prays for dismissal of
the writ petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the entire material on record,
we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal for the following reasons:
Admittedly, the petitioner in the written examination
held for recruitment to the post of Assistant Controller and
Audit Officer in the Department of State Audit Accounts
secured 444.50 marks. The petitioner had admittedly
claimed reservation under 3B Rural Kannada Medium. The
cutoff marks as submitted by the learned counsel for

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57867-DB
WP No. 24144 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010386772020


respondent No.2 referring to memo dated 14.10.2026 is,
for General Merit-701 marks and for 3B category-685
marks. When the petitioner has scored only 444.50 marks,
the petitioner has no locus to challenge the selection of
either respondent No.3 or any other candidates. When the
petitioner has failed to qualify himself for interview, he
petitioner cannot question the selection of either
respondent No.3 or other candidates selected under
various categories.

6. The petitioner also contends that there is
excess reservation provided to Hyderabad Karnataka. It is
to be noticed that 8% reservation is provided to
Hyderabad Karnataka in terms of 2013 Notification. It is
submitted that the Hyderabad Karnataka Local Area was
provided for Group-A 13 posts and for Group-B 30 posts.
However, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
submit that it includes carry forward posts also. The
petitioner has not established as to how respondent No.2
has provided excess reservation.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57867-DB
WP No. 24144 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010386772020



7. The Tribunal under impugned order has rightly
recorded that the applicant had applied under Category 3B
locus standi
Rural Kannada Medium and has no to
challenge selection of candidates of other categories. The
Tribunal has considered all the contentions raised by the
petitioner and found that all those contentions are
meritless.

8. We do not find any error or illegality in the
order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly writ petition
stands rejected .


Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE


NC
CT:bms
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2