THE DIRECTOR A AND H R vs KALLAPPA GONNAGAR S/O. HANAMAPPA GONNAGAR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100666 OF 2025 (S-PRO)

BETWEEN:

1. THE DIRECTOR (A AND H R)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
CORPORATION OFFICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
(A AND H R D) CORPORATE OFFICE,
GESCOM KALABURGI,
DISTRICT KALABURGI – 585 211.

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE)
O AND M CIRCLE, GESCOM
SHIVASHANTAVEERA NAGAR,
ST
ANAND COMPLEX, 1 FLOOR,
HOSAPETE ROAD,
KOPPAL DISTRICT,
KOPPAL-583 231.
…APPELLANTS

Digitally
signed by K M
SOMASHEKAR
Date:
2026.10.17
17:28:51
+0530
K M
SOMASHEKAR

(BY SRI. SRIRANGA SUBBANNA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

AND:

1. KALLAPPA GONNAGAR
S/O. HANAMAPPA GONNAGAR
AGED. ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC. JUNIOR ASST. O AND M DIVISION,
R/O. KALALABANDI,
TQ. KUSHTAGI,
DISTRICT KOPPAL-583 231.

2. HANUMAPPA
AGED. ABOUT 34 YEARS
OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT (O AND M)
YALABURGA SUB-DIVISION,
KOPPAL, KOPPAL DIST - 583231.

3.
PRAKASH SHARANAPPA HUGGANNAVAR
AGED. ABOUT 34 YEARS
OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT
(O AND M) YALABURGA SUB DIVISION
KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 231.

4.
VINOD KUMAR S/O. MALLAPPA
AGED. ABOUT 34 YEARS
OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT (O AND M)
KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION,
KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231

5.
MANGALAPPPA S/O. BASAPPA HADAPAD
AGED. ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT
(O AND M) KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION
KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

6.
VEERESH S/O. KALLAPA BELLAD
AGED. ABOUT 38 YEARS
OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT (O AND M)
KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION,
KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231.

7. LAKKAPPA S/O. TIMMAPPA
AGED. ABOUT 33 YEARS
OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT
(O AND M) KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION
KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADV. C/R1)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29/04/2025 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO. 103353/2024 AND
FURTHER THE W.P. NO. 103353/2024 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1/PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED
BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL WITH COST IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)

1. Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No.103353 of
2024, respondents No.1, 2 and 3 therein have
preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as
per the status in the writ petition.
3. Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 being Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Ltd and its officers, invited
applications for various vacant posts in its department
by a notification bearing No.KPTCL/B16/40360/2016-
17, dated 08.09.2016.
4. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant
and claimed reservation of a post reserved for a
candidate from Hyderabad Karnataka Region under
Article 371J of the Constitution of India.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

5. The petitioner was selected for the post of Junior
Assistant.
6. As contemplated in the Constitution of India and the
subsequent enactments passed, a separate order for
the purposes of Recruitment, Appointment, Seniority,
Promotion and Operation of Reservation for the
candidates from Hyderabad Karnataka Region is
maintained by respondents 1 to 3 from the residuary
cadre which is a general cadre for the aforementioned
purposes applicable to the rest of the State.
7. In the recruitment process respondents 1, 2 and 3
found that the petitioner to be much more meritorious
and that he would have got the appointment as a
Junior Assistant in the residuary cadre itself without
availing the reservation facility under Article 371J and
hence after recruitment, the petitioner was placed in
the residuary cadre instead of the cadre reserved for
candidates from Hyderabad-Karnataka region.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

8. As the cadre for candidates from Hyderabad-
Karnataka region was not only for initial recruitment
but also applied for subsequent promotions, the
petitioner realized that being meritorious became a
curse on him and that less meritorious candidates
than him, who are recruited by availing the benefit
under Article 371J of the Constitution of India, became
entitled for earlier promotions. This constrained him to
file W.P.No.103353 of 2024 with the following
prayers:
a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned endorsement
bearing No.
CEA(«)/PÉÆ/G¯É¤/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¹)/PÀ-/2023
Dated 21.08.2023 passed by the respondent No.3
vide Annexure A and consequently quash the
Final Seniority list dated 02.08.2023 bearing No.

CEA(«)/G¯É¤/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¹)/PÀ-/2023-24/ CYS-4 published
by the 3rd Respondent pertaining to the post of
Junior Assistant Vide Annexure H in so far as
petitioner at Sl No. 18 under NHKR and
Respondent No. 4 to 9 at Sl No. 24 to 29 under
HKR is concerned;

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
rd
Mandamus, directing the 3 Respondent to re-do
the Final Seniority list dated 02.08.2023 by
considering the name of Petitioner under
Hyderabad Karnataka Region by considering the
representations vide Annexures J, K, N and P:
or, alternatively;
c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
rd
Mandamus, directing the 3 Respondent to
provide an opportunity to petitioner to exercise his
option as contemplated under Clause 6 of the
Karnataka Public employment (reservation in
Appointment for Hyderabad Karnataka Region)
Order, 2013;
d) Pass such order or orders which this Hon'ble court
deems fit and necessary under the facts and
circumstances of the case.

9. Learned Single Judge, based on the following reasons
has passed the following order, wherein paragraph
Nos.9 to 14 read as under:
“9. It is trite that a candidate belonging to a reserved
category – whether SC / ST or otherwise, does not
forfeit his reservation merely by securing a place in
the general merit list. Such a candidate continues to
retain his right and benefits associated with their
constitutional status. The same analogy must apply

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

to the case at hand, a domicile based reservation
under Article 371J does not evaporate merely
because the candidate has outshone others in merit.
Pursuant to the amendment to the Constitution of India, by
bringing in Article 371J, the Government issued an order to
give effect to the said Article on 06-07-2013. Paragraph-6
of the said order defines domicile. Domicile to mean a
person from local region for the purpose of direct
recruitment or promotion. Therefore, what the petitioner
claims in terms of his right under the Constitution of India
and the Government order of 2013 is, reservation, based
on domicile. It is admitted fact that the petitioner belongs
to the said area and further admitted fact that the
petitioner had claimed reservation belonging to the said
area.
10. Therefore, domicile status of the petitioner
cannot be taken away by a stroke of pen on the
respondents placing the petitioner in the list of non-
Hyderabad-Karnataka Region at the time of final
select list. The status once conferred and accepted
cannot be nullified by a clerical misplacement in the
wrong regional list. As a matter of fact, no amount of
administrative delay or oversight can subvert the
sanctity of a constitutional guarantee. I therefore
answer the aforesaid issue holding that the domicile
status of the petitioner cannot be effaced merely
because the petitioner is placed in a list of non-
Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates as the domicile is a
legal status, not a administrative convenience. It is

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

acquired by birth not by choice. As a result of which,
the petitioner would not loose his right to be
promoted to the next higher cadre, from out of the
Hyderabad-Karnataka list or the Kalyana-Karnataka
list as it is called. The statutory right to promotion
cannot be stifled by administrative callousness.
11. All the learned counsels for the respondents in unison
have projected delay to be the primary ground to decline
entertainment of the petition. It is their submission that the
petitioner has kept quiet for close to four years despite him
being fully aware of the fact that he belongs to Hyderabad-
Karnataka region and was appointed from out of the list of
non-Hyderabad Karnataka candidates. The petitioner ought
to have immediately objected to the said listing, by taking
appropriate course in law. The petitioner has not so done.
While it may be in a given case that delay in challenge to a
seniority list, would become fatal but in the subject case, it
does not, for the reason that the petitioner’s promotion
after his appointment did come about only in 2023, he has
immediately represented. The representations are ignored.
It is therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. The right
that the petitioner is projecting or wanting to exercise is a
constitutional right under Article 371J. The said right
cannot be marred or marooned in thin air, on account of
delay of the petitioner approaching this Court, for a
palpable folly, on the part of the official respondents. Delay
in the peculiar facts of this case would not decline
entertainment of the petition, as delay cannot take 28
away the constitutional right of the petitioner. Except the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

projection of delay, there is no other projection either by
the Corporation or by the other two respondents who are
represented. Both of them have based their vehement
submissions only on delay.
12. The incidental issue that surrounds delay is also
projected by the respondents, it is the issue of
estoppel. The said submission is noted only to be
rejected, as it is trite law that promotion is a
statutory right. It may not be a fundamental right,
but undoubtedly a statutory right. In the case at
hand, the petitioner has his constitutional right under
Article 371J. It is trite that there can be no estoppel
against a statute or statutory right. The petitioner
has a constitutional right. Therefore, there cannot be
a estoppel against the fountain head of statutes – the
Constitution of India. The delay has been adequately
explained and the explanation is found to be
satisfactory . On all the aforesaid reasons, the petition
deserves to succeed.
13. It is further trite that if a person is entitled to
reservation for being a candidate belonging to SC or ST and
he secures high marks, he is placed in the general merit
category list. That would not mean that the said person
who had claimed reservation as a person belonging to
reserved category, would lose his reservation merely
because he has secured high rank and gets into the bracket
of general merit category. Reservation to him as belonging
to a reserved category candidate is available and available
for all times to come in accordance with law. If the very

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

concept is paraphrased to the issue in the case at hand,
what would unmistakably emerge is that, the petitioner
finding himself high in merit, being placed in a non-
Hyderabad-Karnataka Region select list, would not mean
that he would lose the reservation under Article 371J,
which is on domicile. In that light, the petition deserves to
succeed.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Mandamus issues to respondents 1 to 3 to include
the name of the petitioner at the appropriate
place in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region final
select list dated 02.08.2023, and grant him all
consequential benefits flowing thereto.
(iii) If any person, apart from respondents 4 to 9, is
to be dislodged by bringing in the petitioner in
the seniority list of Hyderabad-Karnataka Region
at the appropriate place, he shall be heard in the
matter.
(iv) Time for compliance is 2 months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.”

10. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 1, 2 and 3 have
preferred this appeal.
11. The case of the appellants is that;

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

a. It is normal practice that, when a person is
entitled to be selected under a reserved
category, if found that he can get recruited
under the General Merit category, then in that
event, the authorities concerned always recruits
him under the General Merit category.
b. It is also contended that the petitioner was
recruited pursuant to the notification dated
08.09.2016 and before the recruitment process
was over, a circular dated 16.11.2016 was
passed by the State, which reads as under:
: 78 2014 .
ಸಂ ಆಇ
ೖಕ ೕ ಕ ಟಕ ಸ ರ ಸ ಲಯ
ನ ಧ .
ಂಗ , !ಂಕ : 16.11.2016
ೕ
ಷಯ : ಧ #ೕಮ% &' ()ಗ* ಅ , ಸ -. ವ ಹಂತದ -. ಪ 4ದ
ಆ 56 ಯ78 9ಂ:ವ;<= , >)? ಪ @A ತ B)ದ
ತ ಯ ಅಂ %ಮ ಆ 56 ಪ @A ಪ ' ಕ@ವ 9ನ8
.
&-ಸೕದ ( ನಗಳ ಬ EF
!ಂಕ 22.05.2015 ರ A : GರHಸIದ J= ೕKಯ-. LೕಡIದ
NಗOಗಳ78 9ಂ:ವ;<= , ಸ Q Rೕಯ Sಂದ TU VW6 Rದ
Sಂದಗಳ-. ನ XYZ ಗಳ78 [ಂ\ವ-. ಈ ^ಳಕಂಡಂ_ ಕ ' ಮ ವ `ಸa
OಸIbY :
1. !ಂಕ 22.05.2015 ರ J= ೕKಯ-. LೕಡIದ NಗOc
ಕ ಟಕ dೕಕeೕ ಆ fೕಗ!ಂದ Eghi j' ೕಷನ klm ಅ Hಯ-.
gïì
^ೖnಳo ಬXpದ #ೕಮ%E Nತ' ೕVತb ತ= Y .
2. ಧ #ೕಮ% &' ()ಗ* ಇ 78 9ಂY VW6 Rದ Sಂದ TU
ಸ Q Rೕಯ Sಂದದ-. ಲಭ ವ XYZ ಗRE ಅ , ಆ Tr Lವ ಅ (Oಚ#ಯ78
ಪ ' _ ೕಕb GರH , ಪ ' _ ೕಕb #ೕಮ% ಪ ' t' 5 ^ೖnಂu ಆ 56
ಅಂ %ಮnRv: .

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

3. ಈ wಗKೕ ಒಂ Yೕ ಪದ ಮದ ಸ Q Rೕಯ Sಂದ TU VW6 Rದ
Sಂದಗಳ-. ಲಭ ವ XYZ ಗಳ78 [ಂ\ವ L@A ನ-. ಅ ,ಗಳ78 ಆ Tr Lವ

ಒಂ Yೕ ಅ (Oಚ#ಯ-. ಸ Q Rೕಯ ವ t= ಗRಂದ ಒಂ Yೕ ಅ , ಪ 4ದ ಪ ' ಕರಣಗRE
ಸಂಬಂ (ದಂ_ , ಅ , ಸ -. ದ ಸQ Rೕಯ ವ t= ಗRಂದ , #ೕಮ% ಪ ' t' 5
zಣn*o ವ 9ನ8 BvYೕ ಹಂತದ -. ಆ 56 ಪ 4cವಂ%ಲ. .
4. >)? ಪ @A {ಂದ ಆ 56 ಪ @A ಯ78 ತ B)ವ-. |ದ-E
VW6 Rದ Sಂದದ-. ಲಭ ವ XYZ ಗಳ78 ಪ )ಗ}, ಆ 56 ಪ @A
ತ B)v: . ತದನಂತರ , ಸ Q Rೕಯ Sಂದದ-. ಲಭ ವ XYZ ಗRE:~b
.
ಅಹ ಸ Q Rೕಯ ಅಭ ಗಳ ಆ 56 ಪ @A ತ B)v:
( ^ . ಎ l . dೕಕಥ )
ಸ ರದ ಜಂ @ ಯದ
(
ೖp' - ಕ ಟಕ ೕಷ ೕಶ )
ಆಇ

It is submitted, based on the aforementioned
circular petitioner has been placed under the
General Merit category and that he has not
challenged the provisions of the said circular.
c. It is also submitted that, immediately after
recruitment the petitioner is placed in the
residuary cadre and not in Hyderabad
Karnataka cadre, which is a separate cadre by
itself.
d. Thus the appointment of the petitioner has to
be considered as taking birth in the residuary
cadre and not in Hyderabad Karnataka cadre
and hence he cannot now pray that he should

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

be treated as a person recruited under the
reservation of Hyderabad Karnataka cadre.
e. It is submitted that the Writ Petition was filed in
the year 2024 and the same ought to have
been dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches, and that the learned Single Judge erred
in not doing so and has also passed the
impugned order by ignoring the aforementioned
submissions.
f. On the said grounds it is prayed that the writ
appeal be allowed and the writ petition filed by
the petitioner be dismissed.
Per contra
12. , counsel for the respondents
herein/petitioners in the writ petition, justifies the
impugned order and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
13. The documents produced by the concerned parties
reveal that the employment notification is dated
08.09.2016, which is much earlier to the circular

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

dated 16.11.2016, and the said employment
notification was not subject to the circular dated
16.11.2016 relied upon by respondents 1, 2 and 3.
The said employment notification contemplated
classification of reservation of posts for Hyderabad
Karnataka region (Local Cadre) under Article 371J of
the Constitution of India. The application filed by the
petitioner reveals he claimed such reservation. That
means the petitioner applied under the cadre reserved
for candidates coming from Hyderabad Karnataka
region and is entitled to claim reservation under
Article 371J of the Constitution of India. The petitioner
has been found most meritorious from among all the
candidates who applied under Article 371J. Thus when
Residuary Cadre is different from the cadre reserved
under Article 371J, and the petitioner had made an
application for employment claiming reservation under
Article 371J, and upon finding him to be the most
meritorious amongst the said persons, respondents 1,

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

2 and 3 ought to have recruited him under the cadre
reserved as per Article 371J and placing him in the
residuary cadre has been a mistake.
14. The Circular dated 16.11.2016 is only prospective in
nature and does not have a retrospective effect so as
to determine the process of recruitment as per
employment notification dated 08.09.2016, and the
same is not applicable for the selection process in
which the petitioner is recruited and the said circular
does not come to the rescue of respondents 1, 2 and
3. Thus under the circumstances, as reasoned by the
learned Single Judge in respect of the alleged delay in
filing the writ petition, we are in consonance with the
same and are not inclined to accept the contention of
respondents 1, 2 and 3 in respect of delay.
15. Further, the logic and reasoning of respondents 1, 2
and 3 as well as the circular dated 16.11.2016 cannot
be accepted as it leads to an absurd situation wherein

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

a person claiming reservation under Article 371J,
because he is more meritorious, is recruited under the
Residential Cadre and less meritorious people are
given the benefit of Article 371J and are granted
earlier promotions than the more meritorious person
such as the petitioner. It is the mistake of
respondents 1, 2 and 3 in not placing the petitioner
under the cadre of Article 371J and they cannot claim
benefit of the same and deny future opportunity to the
petitioner.
16. Further, the petitioner in the writ petition has
impleaded other persons who would be affected by the
order of the learned Single Judge and they have
chosen not to challenge the said order.
17. At this juncture, counsel for respondents No.1 to
3/appellants submits that the order may open a
pandora’s box and many other persons may approach
this court by way of writ petition. This argument

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17110-DB
WA No. 100666 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020204422025

cannot be a ground to deny a right of the petitioner.
Even otherwise, it is always open for respondents 1 to
3 to put up the defence of delay and laches as against
the persons who have not already approached this
Court and take the defence that they have been fence
sitters who did not assert their rights in time and it is
for the appropriate court to examine the same on
merits of each case.
18. For the aforementioned reasons, we are not inclined
to interfere with the well reasoned order of the
learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is hereby
dismissed.

Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE

Sd/-
(USHARANI)
JUDGE

gab
CT:CNB
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25