The State of Karnataka v. Shri Annappa Teradal Grameen Abhivruddi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI WRIT APPEAL NO. 100648 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY PRE UNIVERSITY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶2THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, PRE UNIVERSITY AND LITERACY, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 012.

¶3THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION PRE UNIVERSITY AND LITERACY, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWAEAM, BENGALURU – 560 012.

¶4THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE OFFICE PF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION CHIKKODI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 201 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)

Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad NC:(2026:KHC-D:1693-DB( WA(No.(100648(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( AND:( ( SHRI.,ANNAPPA,TERADAL,GRAMEEN,ABHIVRUDDI, SHIKSHANA,SANSTHES,TERADAL,SCIENCE,, PU,COLLEGE,ATHANI,,, R/BY,ITS,SECRETARY,, DR.,NANDISH,S/O.,ANNAPPA,TERDAL,,, AGE:,44,YEARS,,OCC:,DOCTOR,AND,, SECRETARY,OF,SHRI.,ANNAPPA,TERDAL,, GRAMEEN,ABHIVRUDDI,SHIKSHANA,, SANSTHE,,ATHANI,,R/O:,353,,SHIVAGANGA,, HOSPITAL,,ATHANI,,TQ:,ATHANI,,, DIST:,BELAGAVI,,KARNATAKA,–,591,304., , …,RESPONDENT, , (BY,SRI.,MANOJ,N.,BIKKANNAVAR,,ADV.), , , , THIS, WRIT, APPEAL, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 4, OF, KARNATAKA,HIGH,COURT,ACT,,1961,,PRAYING,TO,,ALLOW,THE, WRIT,APPEAL,AND,SET,ASIDE,THE,ORDER,DATED,10.09.2025,IN, W.P.NO.106573/2025,,PASSED,BY,THE,LEARNED,SINGLE,JUDGE, IN,THE,INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY,AND,ETC.,, , , THIS, WRIT, APPEAL,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING, THIS, DAY,, JUDGMENT, WAS, DELIVERED, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:, , CORAM:, THE,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,M.I.ARUN, AND,, THE,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,B.,MURALIDHARA,PAI, (

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

¶1Aggrieved by the interim order dated 10.09.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.106573 of 2025, the respondent–State therein has preferred the present writ appeal.

¶2The respondent-College was granted the necessary recognition to start a Pre-University College in the year 2019 and has been functioning since then. However, on 23.05.2025, on the ground that the respondent-College had obtained the necessary permission by playing fraud on the authorities concerned and that there were certain lacunae in the respondent-College, the recognition granted in its favour was withdrawn. Notwithstanding the said withdrawal, the respondent-College admitted 157 students for the academic year 2025-26 subsequent to the order of cancellation. Thereafter, having failed to obtain a favourable order from the authorities concerned restoring its recognition, the respondent-College has preferred Writ petition No.106573 of 2025. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties concerned, passed the following interim order:

"i. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to open the SATS portal to enable the petitioner to enter the details of 157 students admitted for the additional 2 courses for which the application dated 30.05.2025 had been made. ii. The said opening of the SATS portal and the registration of the students shall be subject to the result of this writ petition and subject to the result of the enquiry to be made by respondent No.1. iii. The SATS portal shall be opened within 4 days from now, to enable such registration. iv. The enquiry report to be filed on or before

06.11.2025. v. Relist on 06.11.2025."

¶3Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this writ appeal.

¶4The case of the State is that once recognition is withdrawn from the respondent-College, it is not entitled to admit students, and if any admission made thereafter is at its own peril. However, in the course of arguments, learned AGA, upon instructions, fairly submits that all necessary steps would be taken to safeguard the interest of the students concerned. He further submits that the State is ready and willing to shift the students to a Government College, if required. The grievance of the State is that once recognition granted to the respondent-College is withdrawn, it could not have admitted students, and it

is not possible for the State to consider them as students of the respondent-College and conduct examinations in the respondent-College.

¶5Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-College submits that it has all necessary infrastructure and that, by mistake, certain false information was furnished at the time of obtaining recognition. He submits that, considering the present infrastructure, the respondent-College ought to be continued with the recognition granted. It is further submitted that the appellant-State authorities are unnecessarily harassing the respondent-College by not conducting the necessary enquiry into its affairs and delaying by taking decision in respect of the same.

¶6Whether the recognition granted to the respondent-College has been rightly withdrawn or not is the subject matter of proceedings before the concerned authorities, and whether the State rightly rejected the request of respondent-College to start additional sections for Pre-University Course is the subject matter of the writ petition.

¶7Be that as it may, it is important to protect the interest of the students admitted by the respondent-College, who

are not even before this Court. No doubt, the respondent-College could not have admitted the students without due recognition. If the recognition is withdrawn, it is entitled to challenge the same in the manner known to law and should admit students only if permitted in law to do so. The respondent-College clearly erred in admitting 157 students for the academic year 2025-26. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-College that the said students have attended classes during the academic year 2025-26. It is not the case of the State that it intends to deny the students the opportunity to write the examination for the first year PUC, said to commence from 10.02.2026. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error in the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, and the same is hereby upheld.

¶8However, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the respondent-College should not admit students for the coming academic year 2026-27 without obtaining necessary permissions. If the respondent-College fails to obtain the necessary permission to continue the 157 students for second year PUC, the State shall be at liberty to transfer them to some other Institution.

Ordered Accordingly. Liberty is also reserved to the students to sue the respondent-College, if they are put to any loss or injury due to fault on the part of the respondent-College. In light of the above, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.

Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30