Sri H Manjunath v. The State of Karnataka

NC:(2026:KHC:12041( WP(No.(17094(of(2023( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(26 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(H.T.(NARENDRA(PRASAD( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(17094(OF(2023((S-RES)( BETWEEN:( (SRI,H,MANJUNATH,

S/O,SANNA,HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS, R/AT,CHANNAMUMBAPURA,VILLAGE, ABBALAGERE,POST,,SAVALANGA,ROAD,

SHIVAMOGGA,TALUK,&,DISTRICT-577204, …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,SRIKANTH,M,P.,,ADVOCATE), AND:(

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,

SCHOOL,EDUCATION,AND,LITERACY,DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT,OF,KARNATAKA, M,S,BUILDING,,DR,AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,

BANGALORE,560001., Digitallytisignedtiby DHANALAKSHMI , MURTHY

2., UNIVERSITY,OF,AGRICULTURE, Location:0HIGH COURTOF AND,HORTICULTURAL,SCIENCES, KARNATAKA SHIVAMOGGA-577205, REP.,BY,ITS,VICE,CHANCELLOR,, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,SPOORTHY,HEGDE,N,,HCGP.,FOR,R1:, SRI,THYAGARAJA,S,,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2), , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASH,THE,ENDORSEMENT,DATED:,19.05.2023,BEARING,NO., EP,274,SLB,2022,ISSUED,BY,THE,R1,VIDE,ANNEXURE-AB,AND, ETC., THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:,

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶1In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the impugned endorsement dated 19.05.2023 vide Annexure-AB, whereby respondent No.1 denied the declaration of equivalence of the Bridge Course conducted by the Karnataka State Open University as equivalent to SSLC Examination conducted in SSLC Board.

¶2The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Group 'D' employee in respondent-University and retired from the service on 31.08.2023. When he was in service, the petitioner's name was placed in the seniority list for the post of Attender. Since he had completed 10th standard through Bridge Course, his case was not considered for equivalence in SSLC. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.10333/2020. This Court, by order dated 14.09.2022 held in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 as follows: "5. Accordingly, the Endorsement dated

06.05.2020 (Annexure-Z) is set aside while clarifying that any decision on the substantive representation

of the petitioner regarding promotion can be taken once the aspect of equivalence is decided by the State Government. The orders relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner of the Co-ordinate Bench where orders passed while considering the case of students which is not the case in the present factual matrix and hence such judgments are not applicable. The State Government is still to take a decision and it would be not be appropriate for the Court to pass any orders exercising equitable jurisdiction unless State Government takes a decision in that matter.

¶6Needless to state upon decision of equivalence taken by the State as directed herein, petitioner's claim for any rights would date back to the date of legal entitlement. The decision of equivalence is directed to be taken within three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order."

¶3Pursuant to directions of this Court in the above order, respondent No.1 issued impugned endorsement vide Annexure-AB. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.50268/2014 and connected matters disposed of on

04.01.2017 and in W.P.Nos.204770-204774/2014 and connected matter disposed of on 15.12.2014 has held that a degree obtained through the Bridge Course is to be treated as equivalent to PUC. In the present case, the impugned endorsement has been issued without considering all these aspects and without application of mind. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

¶5I have perused the impugned endorsement vide Annexure-AB. The same is issued without assigning any proper reasons. There is no application of mind while issuing the impugned endorsement dated 19.05.2023 vide Annexure-AB.

¶6Therefore, the matter requires to be remitted back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner keeping in view of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.10333/2020.

¶7Accordingly, following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed.

b) The impugned endorsement dated 19.05.2023 vide Annexure-AB is hereby quashed. c) Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner keeping in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.10333/2020 and in W.P.No.50268/2014 and connected matters disposed of on 04.01.2017, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 40