Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sahana R Naik on 21 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:21456
RP No. 213 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REVIEW PETITION NO.213 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed by
CHAYA S A 3. KARNATAKA SCHOOL EXAMINATION AND
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ASSESSMENT BOARD,
KARNATAKA
6TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, AG A/W
SRI. KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W
SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:21456
RP No. 213 of 2026
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SAHANA R. NAIK,
D/O RAJANAYAKA S.R.,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
MINOR BY GUARDIAN, FATHER
RAJANAYAKA S.R.,
R/AT NO.16, S.L. TANEDYA,
SINGATGERE HOBLI,
P.O. SOMANAHALLI,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 148.
2. ANUSHA,
D/O VITTAL KULAI,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
MINOR BY GUARDIAN, FATHER,
VITTAL KULAI,
R/AT NO.4-45, ANUGRAHA,
HINKALDI PETHRI, CHERKADI,
UDUPI - 576 215.
3. SUDHIKSHA,
D/O RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
MINOR BY GUARDIAN, MOTHER
SUNANDA,
R/A NO.BADAGUDDE, HEBRI,
HEBRI POST,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 112.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.V. NAIK AND SRI. V. RAJANNA, ADVOCATES)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 AND SECTION 114 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:21456
RP No. 213 of 2026
HC-KAR
THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2026, PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.11717/2026 (EDN RES), A COPY OF THE SAME IS
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - A AND REHEAR THE MATTER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. This Review Petition is filed by the State Government
assailing the Order dated 15.04.2026 passed in
W.P.No.11717/2026.
2. Heard Sri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate
General along with Sri. Kiran V. Ron, learned Additional
Advocate General and Sri. H.K. Kenchegowda, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners
and Sri. R.V. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
3. It is argued by the learned Advocate General appearing
for the petitioners-State, that the identical matter was listed
before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.10676/2026,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:21456
RP No. 213 of 2026
HC-KAR
wherein, this Court, by Order dated 10.04.2026, dismissed the
Writ Petition with cost and therefore, sought for review of the
order impugned in this Review Petition. It is also argued by the
Learned Advocate General by referring to the Paragraph 8 of
the impugned order, wherein, this Court in the second part of
the order has ordered that any subsequent modification is
contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is argued
that the later part of the order would affect the interests of the
State Government in so far as taking any further decision in
future, and accordingly sought for interference of this Court.
4. It is also argued by the learned Advocate General by
referring to the Draft Notification dated 10.04.2026, wherein,
the State Government has taken a decision to introduce certain
amendment to the provisions under the Karnataka School
Examination and Assessment Board Act, 1966, however, the
said draft Notification was not placed before this Court at the
time of disposal of the Writ Petition and accordingly, sought for
interference of this Court to review the impugned order in the
present Review Petition.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:21456
RP No. 213 of 2026
HC-KAR
5. Per contra, Sri. R.V. Naik, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent, argued that, in the event if the Grading System
is introduced in so far as the SSLC examination is concerned,
if candidates/students secure higher marks in the third
language, then the interest of such candidates/students will be
jeopardized, and therefore sought for dismissal of the Review
Petition.
6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, on careful consideration of the petition
papers would indicate that, the petitioners-State has issued the
Revised Circular dated 28.10.2025 in so far as conducting
SSLC Examination for the Academic Year 2025-2026. It is to be
noted that, as on the date of issuance of such
Notification/Revised Circular, no steps have been taken to
introduce Grading System. It is the duty of the State
Government to conduct the examination as per the prevailing
Notification/Circular. It is also to be noted that the SSLC
examination was conducted from 18.03.2026 to 02.04.2026,
however, the Draft Rules (Annexure-B) was notified on
10.04.2026 after the completion of the SSLC examination for
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:21456
RP No. 213 of 2026
HC-KAR
the Academic Year 2025-2026, and therefore, I am of the
opinion that, the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate
General cannot be accepted on the face of it.
7. This Court, following the Judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of NAVEEN KUMAR N. AND OTHERS
Vs. KPTCL AND OTHERS reported in 2025 SCC OnLine KAR
1617, has directed the review petitioners to conduct the
valuation as per the prevailing Rules as on the date of the
issuance of the Notification/Revised Circular dated 28.10.2025,
for conducting the examination for the Academic Year 2025-
2026. It is pertinent to mention here that, though learned
Advocate General places reliance on the Order dated
10.04.2026 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a
public interest litigation, however, the aforesaid Order was not
placed before this Court at the time of the disposal of the Writ
Petition and on the other hand, Judgment of the Division Bench
in NAVEEN KUMAR N.(supra) was not placed before the
Division Bench in the public interest litigation.
8. Be that as it may be. The review petitioners-State is
placing the Draft Rules dated 10.04.2026, which is yet to born
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:21456
RP No. 213 of 2026
HC-KAR
and the regular Notification is yet to be passed by the
petitioners-State based on the objection to be raised by the
aggrieved parties, if any. In that view of the matter, for all
practical purposes, there is no Rules as on today unless the
said Draft Rules is promulgated in a manner known to law and
therefore, I am of the view that, there is no error apparent on
the face of the record. Further, in view of the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SHRI RAM SAHU
(dead) through legal representatives and OTHERS Vs.
VINOD KUMAR RAWAT AND OTHERS, reported in
(2021)13 SCC 1, I am of the view that, there is no error
apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order
passed by this Court on 15.04.2026 in W.P. No.11717/2026
and as such, I am not inclined to interfere in this Review
Petition.
9. In so far as the arguments addressed by the learned
Advocate General in so far as the second part of paragraph 8 of
the impugned order is concerned, as the intended Draft Rules
produced at Annexure-B is yet to be published by the
competent authority, I am of the view that, it is always open
for the petitioners-State to take decision in the matter in
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:21456
RP No. 213 of 2026
HC-KAR
accordance with law, in future which is in the domain of the
petitioner-State, unless the same is challenged before this
Court in the appropriate proceedings. In this regard, it is to be
noted from the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of COLLECTOR (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) ALLAHABAD
AND ANOTHER Vs. RAJA RAM JAISWAL reported in AIR
1985 SC 1622, wherein it is held that, when a power is
conferred to achieve a certain purpose, that power can be
exercised only for achieving that purpose and not for any
extraneous consideration and also not for irrelevant or
colourable exercises of the matter. It is also to be noted that,
as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
H.B. GANDI, EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-
ASSESSING AUTHORITY, KARNAL AND OTHERS Vs. M/S.
GOPI NATH & SONS AND OTHERS reported in 1992 Supp
(2) SCC 312, wherein it is held that the judicial review to be
exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is to interfere with the decision making process only and
not the decision itself. In that view of the matter, the second
part of the order passed by this Court at paragraph 8 should
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:21456
RP No. 213 of 2026
HC-KAR
not curtail the power of the State Government in taking
decision in accordance with law, in future.
10. However, it is made clear that in so far as the
examination and valuation for the Academic Year 2025-2026 is
concerned, same has to be conducted as per the Revised
Circular dated 28.10.2025, which was prevailing as on the date
of conducting examination and for valuation. In that view of the
matter, following the declaration of law made by the Division
Bench of this Court, in the case of NAVEEN KUMAR N.(supra)
referred to above in identical circumstances, the present
Review Petition is accordingly disposed of.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
sac
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7