Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha N vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 May, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 15242 OF 2026 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATHA N
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER,
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (BC),
GATTHAVENKATARAVANA, MULBAGAL (T),
KOLAR (DIST),
RESIDING AT BELLAMBALLI (V)
DEVARAYASAMUDRA (P)
MULBAGAL (T), KOLAR (DIST)
PIN 563127.
2. DODDAIAH S.S,
S/O LATE SHIVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER,
Digitally signed MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
by CHANDANA KUDIGE KUSHALNAGAR TALUK, KODAGU,
BM
RESIDING AT MULLUSAGE VILLAGE AND POST,
Location: High KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK,
Court of
Karnataka KODAGU.
3. RAMESHA K.R,
S/O RAMAKRISHNE GONDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER,
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (205),
BASAVANA HALLI, KUSHALNAGAR TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT NO.122, SAMPARA,
PANCHACHARYA LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGARA 4TH STAGE, MYSORE.
4. MAHADEVA D.G,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
S/O GOVINDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSISTANT TEACHER,
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (ST-110)
KAGGUNDI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT D.K KOPPAL (VILLAGE),
SIDDAPURA (POST), HEBBAL (HOBLI),
K.R NAGAR (TALUK),
MYSORE DISTRICT.
5. ANANDAMURTHY M.V.
S/O VEERABHADRAPPACHARYA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER,
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (ST-109)
DHARMAPURA, HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT: MALALI VILLAGE,
KESTUR POST, HEBBALU HOBLI,
K.R NAGAR TALUK.
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571602.
6. EREGOWDA K,
S/O KULLE GOWDA (U/F MALE GOWDA),
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER,
K.R.C.R.S. HIREHALLY (ST-424),
H.D KOTE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT: SHIRAMAHALLY (V)
K.G HALLY (H) H.D KOTE (TQ), MYSORE (DIST).
7. ASHA RANI D.N,
D/O S R GIRISH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS HINDI TEACHER,
KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
HERAHALLI, H.D KOTE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571113,
RESIDING AT NO.550, B BLOCK MAHADEVAPURA,
J.P NAGAR MYSORE - 570008.
8. ASEED.
S/O HAMOOD,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER,
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
VOGGA, KAVALAPADURU VILLAGE (BC-143),
BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
RESIDING AT: PADE HOUSE,
PADANGADY POST AND VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574217.
9. GEETHA M,
D/O M MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
WORKING AS HINDI TEACHER,
SRI MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
DODDAHUNDI, MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT NO.1052,
SATHAGALLY LAYOUT,
SATHAGALLY, MYSURU.
10. SANGAPPA R BEERUNAGI,
S/O REVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER,
KITTUR RANI CHANNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL
KOLHAR (SC-450),
BASAVANA BAGEVADI TALUK,
VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT - 586 210,
RESIDING AT CHADACHAN TALUK,
VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT,
PIN-586 205.
11. JAGADEESH B.K,
S/O. KUSHAPPA. B
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS COMPUTER TEACHER,
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (205),
BASAVANAHALLI, KUSHALNAGAR,
KODAGU-571 234,
RESIDING AT: NO.246 JAMBURU BANE,
MADAPURA POST, SOMWARPET, KODAGU-571 251.
12. RUPAKSHI,
D/O SUDHAKAR KALTI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS HINDI TEACHER, MORARJI RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL HUNASAGI,
SHORAPUR TALUK,
YADGIR DISTRICT.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
13. GIRISHA E.V,
S/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS MATHEMATICS TEACHER,
MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (205)
BASAVANAHALLI, KUSHALNAGAR KODAGU-571 234,
RESIDING AT ECHOORU VILLAGE AND POST PERIYAPATNA
TALUK, MYSORE.
14. . DAYANAND HIREMATH,
S/O SOMAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST. HINDI
TEACHER, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL
GANJIGATTI, SHIGGAON TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
2ND CROSS,
B BLOCK HAVERI.
15. GANGAMMA S BETAGERIMATH,
D/O SIDDARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASST. ERIGLISH TEACHER,
KITTUR RANI CHANNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL
MADAPUR, SAVANUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT KALALAKONDA TALLIHALLI POST, SAVANUR
TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT.
16. CHANDRAGOUDA N PATIL,
S/O NARASANAGOUDA,
AGED A ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST. KANNADA
TEACHER, KITTUR RANI CHANNAMMA RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL, MADAPUR, SAVANUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT KADAKOL SAVANUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
17. ANITA V.MANNANNAVAR,
VIRIPAXAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASST HINDI TEACHER, AT MADAPUR TALUK,
SHIGGAVI, DR.HAVERI RESIDING AT PO.SHIGGAVI, TALUK
SHIGGAVI HAVARI DISTRICT.
18. MANJAIAH B.,
S/O BASAVARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS A PRINCIPAL MDRS
SCHOOL (110) KAGGUNDI, PIRIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT NO.734, 6TH CROSS,
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
BASAVAGUDI, HEBBOL, MYSORE.
19. SHASHIKALA MALIPATIL,
W/O MAHESH KUMAR,
AGED 47 YEARS,
WORKING AS A PRINCIPAL MDRS SCHOOL,
KODEKAL (SC-316), YADAGIRI,
RESIDING AT: NEAR MANDALAMMA GUDI, KODEKAL,
YADAGIRI, HUNSAGI TALUK, YADIGIRI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. L. SRINIVASA BABU.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP, BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
SOCIETY, CO-OPERATIVE BOARD BUILDING,
6TH AND 7TH FLOOR, NEAR CHANDRIKA HOTEL,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDHARTH BABU RAO.,ADV. FOR R2;
SRI. RAVINDRANATH, AGA, FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND GRANT PROPORTIONATE SERVICE
WEIGHTAGE TO THE PETITIONERS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEARS 2008-
2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 IN TERMS OF THE SERVICE
RENDERED BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE RESPECTIVE DATES OF
JOINING, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENTS RENDERED IN
W.A. NO. 545/2021 DATED 07.11.2022 ANNEXURE-W. AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioners seek for the following reliefs:-
” Wherefore, the Petitioners is most respectfully prays:
1. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to
consider and grant proportionate service weightage to the
Petitioners for the academic years 2008-2009, 2009-2010,
2010-2011, 2011-2012 in terms of the service rendered by
the Petitioners from the respective dates of joining, and in
accordance with the judgments rendered in W.A. No.
545/2021 dated 07.11.2022 Annexure-W
2. Issued writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to
consider the representation dated: :05-05-2026, 27-04-2026
04-05-2026, 30-04-2026, 27-04-26, 29-04-26, 29-04-2026,
29-04-2026, 29-04-2026, 25-09-2025, 04-05-2026 04-05-
2026, 04-05-2026, 04-05-2026, 04-05-202, 04-05-2026, 05-
11-2025 and 05-05-2026 vide ANNEXURE-AA, AA1, to
AA18 and to grant the proportionate service weightage for
the aforesaid academic years of 2007-2008, 2008-2009,
2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 while computing the
total marks of the Petitioners for selection purposes, and
consequently declare the Petitioners are eligible for selection
against the post of Teacher;
3. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. Though several contentions have been urged by both
sides in support of their respective claims, the issue in controversy
between the parties is directly and squarely covered by the
judgments of Division Bench of this Court in the cases of The
Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society Vs.
Mounesh – W.A.No.545/2021 dated 07.11.2022 and The
Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society Vs.
Vishwanath M.S., – W.A.No.360/2020 and Connected matters
dated 19.07.2023 and judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Vishwanath M.S. and Ors Vs. The State of
Karnataka – W.P.Nos.8113-8131/2015 and connected matters
dated 22.10.2019 at Annexures-H, K and J respectively, wherein it
is held as under:
In W.A.No.545/2021:
“Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. Y. R.
Sadashiva Reddy along with Sri.Sidharth Baburao, learned
counsel for the appellant – Institution and Smt. Ratna N.
Shivayogimath and Sri. Shivayogesh Shivayogimath, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. This intra Court appeal is directed against the
order of the learned Single Judge passed in
W.P.No.15280/2015.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026HC-KAR
3. The facts are not in dispute. The only dispute
that is raised by the appellant-Institution is the proportionate
weightage for partially completed year. The issue is raised
on the basis of the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations,
which provides for grant of 5% weightage for every
completed year of service.
4. Learned Senior counsel has placed a memo
before the Court dated 07.11.2022 enclosing therewith a
copy of the order dated 21.03.2013 passed in a batch of Writ
Appeals and the lead Writ Appeal being W.A.No.31346/2012
whereby, the Co-ordinate Bench has been pleased to up-
held the order of learned Single Judge rejecting the writ
petition seeking to regularize and absorb them in their
respective posts and to pay salary and other service benefits
on par with similarly situated Government Teachers with the
following order:-
“5. All the writ appeals are accordingly
disposed of in terms of the judgment dated
21.02.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.5127/12 and
W.A.Nos.5183-61/12 with connected appeals. The
operative portion of the judgment dated 21.2.2013
reads thus:
“The writ appeals filed by the appellant-
Society are dismissed. The service weightage shall
be awarded to those teachers who are in service as
on the date when the Cadre and Recruitment
Regulations came into force. The appellant shall
accommodate the respondents without disturbing the
candidates who have already been selected by the
appellant.”
However, there shall be no order as to costs.”
5. A Chart in a Tabular Form is also produced,
wherein the details of various petitioners including private
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
respondents herein and the Chart provides for the details of
the name of the persons, the subject against which the
application is made, the Institution where he/she has
discharged duties earlier, writ appeal number, number of
years of service put-in, marks secured in the entrance exam
and the weightage marks given, total marks secured,
cut-off marks and the category against which they have
applied.
6. On perusing the marks secured, it is seen that
respondent Nos.1 to 3 have secured 57.11, 58.5 and 45.96
respectively and the cut-off marks are 63.45, 63.3 and 61.35
respectively. Interestingly, the weightage marks have not
been added. If the weightage marks, as settled by this Court
i.e., at the rate of 5% per year is calculated then respondent
Nos.1 and 2 would be entitled to 15 % and respondent No.3
would be entitled to 20 %.
7. Learned Senior counsel would contend that
respondents have served the Institution for a truncated
period and not for a fully completed year and in the light of
the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, which provides for
awarding of weightage marks only for completed year, the
respondents would be entitled to 10, 10 and 15 marks.
8. Even if the same are taken as correct, for the
sake of arguments, even then the respondents would fairly
secure more than the cut-off marks and thereby render them
eligible for consideration. In that view of the matter, we are of
the considered opinion that the instant writ appeal would not
survive for consideration.
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
9. If the marks secured by respondent Nos.1 and
2 and the weightage marks even if calculated for 2 years
each, respondent No.1 would have secured 67.11 marks and
the cut-off being 63.45, respondent No.1 is entitled to be
appointed. Respondent No.2 would have secured 68.5
marks and the cut-off being 63.3, respondent No.2 is entitled
to be appointed.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would
invite the attention of the Court to Annexure-G (running page
No.93) of the writ appeal being service particulars issued by
the Principal of the School and would point out that
respondent No.3 has been in service from 2006-2007 to
2011-2012 and if the service which is alleged to have been
truncated in the year 2006-2007 and 2010-2011 are not
counted, even otherwise, he has completed four years of
continuous service.
11. The said document is not disputed by the
appellant-Institution. If that be the case, then respondent
No.3 would be entitled for weightage of marks for the year
2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12. In all, he would be
entitled to 20% weightage marks. In that event, if 20 marks is
added to the marks obtained by him in the qualifying
examination, the total marks would come to 65.96, which is
well above the cut-off marks which is 61.35. Hence,
respondent No.3 is also entitled to be appointed.
12. We make it clear that the issue of awarding of
weightage marks for partially completed year of service is not
decided in these appeals as the respondents are even
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
otherwise entitled to be appointed. The fact also remains that
they have already been appointed subject to the result of the
writ petition.
In that view of the matter, the Writ Appeal does not
survive for consideration. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal
stands rejected.”
In W.P.Nos.8113-8131/2015 and connected
matters, it is held as under:
“All these petitioners, who are Teachers of various
Schools working under the control of the Respondent No.3 –
Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society
(‘KREIS’ for short) are before this Court for the following
reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction holding that Tippani
bearing No. Nil dated 2.12.2014 produced at
Annexure-E1 is illegal and is opposed to Articles 14,16
and 21 of the Constitution and also is opposed to the
orders passed by this Hon’ble Court to meet the ends
of justice.
b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
respondents quashing the Select List bearing reference
No. KA.VA.SHE.SA.SA/ADALITHA/HOO. NE/CR-01-
2013-14 dated 10.12.2014 produced at Annexure-F as
the same is illegal and violative of Article 14,16 and 21
of the Constitution.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction directing the
respondents grant weightage of 5% for each academic
year’s service irrespective of the date of appointment
and proportionate weightage to the service which is
less than one half of the academic year and further
consider the cases of the petitioner for appointment to
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
the posts to which they have applied to meet the ends
of justice.
d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction directing the
respondents grant weightage to the service put by the
petitioners irrespective of the subject taught by them
the case of the petitioners for the appointment to meet
the ends of justice.
e) Issue a writ mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction directing the
respondents consider the objections filed by the
Petitioner and ascertain the service put by the
Petitioner from the school records without the
intervention of the teachers and principals who were
appointed during the pendency of the WP 20204-
364/2011 and WA 5127/2012 to meet the ends of
justice.
f) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction directing the
respondents include the names of the petitioners in the
final select list and further consider the case of the
petitioner for appointment to the posts of
Principals/Teachers in the services of the schools
run/controlled by the Karnataka Residential Institutional
Society from the date on which the respondents have
appointed Teachers and Principals in the year
2012/with effect from occurrence of the vacancy or
whichever is earlier and grant them fixation of pay,
arrears of salary and increments and all the
consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ
petitions has filed a memo dated 22.10.2019, today, in the
open Court to dismiss the prayer (b) as not pressed, with
liberty to the petitioners to approach this court, if need arises
in future, in separate Proceedings.
3. The memo dated 22.10.2019 is placed on record.
Accordingly, the prayer (b) in these writ petitions is dismissed
as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioners approach this
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
Court, if need arises in future, in separate Proceedings, in
accordance with law.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are
qualified to be appointed to the posts of Teachers/Principals
and they were appointed as Principals/Teachers and now
they are wrongfully relieved from service. Each one of them
has a Bachelor’s/Master’s Degree in the discipline of Arts/
Science/Mathematics or equivalent qualification. Some of
the petitioners have passed Bachelor’s Degree in Education
or possess equivalent qualification and some of them are
qualified to be appointed as Principals. Every one of them
were appointed either to the post of Principal or as Teacher
during the ‘No Rule Period’ in Morarji Desai Residential
Schools or in Morarji Desai Residential Schools for the
Minorities, Kittur Rani Chennamma Schools or in Ekalavya
Model Residential Schools, which are situated in different
parts of Karnataka working under the 3rd respondent. It is
further contended that all the above schools were started as
a succor to the talented children who could not afford quality
education. The State Government took initiative by following
the Scheme of the Central Government under which Javahar
Navodaya Vidyalayas were started.
5. It is further case of the petitioners that as on the
date of filing these writ petitions, there are about 600 schools
which are under the control of the Department of Social
Welfare and there are another 50 to 60 Schools which are
under the control of Minority Department of Government of
Karnataka. More than 100 schools are in the pipelines as
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
per the statement made by the Minister for Social Welfare on
the floor of the house in the Belgaum Session of the
Legislature which has appeared as a news item in ‘Prajavani’
dated 19.12.2014. Originally, Schools were started in
different names and now there are only five categories of
Schools viz., 1) Morarji Desai Residential Schools which
include Schools meant for students from the BCM
Category/SC-ST category; 2) Ekalavya Model Residential
Schools meant for ST students, wherein 75% of the students
are admitted from SC-ST category and 25% from other
categories; 3)Kithur Rani Chennamma Schools which are
meant for girls; 4) A.B. Vajapayee Residential Schools – Co-
education and 5) Morarji Desai Residential Schools for
Minorities. All the above Schools are under the control of the
3rd respondent – KREIS. The 5th category which is under
the control of the 3rd respondent – KREIS is sought to be
handed over to the Department of Minorities, which is yet to
be done. The State Government in its order dated 22.6.2001
as per Annexure-A1 made proposal for transfer of residential
schools to the 3rd respondent – KREIS. Thereafter, the
Government decided to continue the schools under its
management as could be seen from the order dated
5.10.2004 as per Annexure-A2.
6. It is further case of the petitioners that the
Government by its order dated 21.10.2009 had constituted a
Committee to make recruitments. Identical orders were
issued in the past. By the said order, a Committee was
constituted under the Chairmanship of the Deputy
Commissioner. The said Committee was authorized to
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
recruit Teachers as per the Government Order dated
21.10.2009. When they were recruited, there was a
notification inviting applications and there was a written test
followed by an Interview. Thereafter, a select list of eligible
candidates was prepared and based on the said select list
and by following roster and also by complying with the
reservation policy, the above Petitioners appointed.
Thereafter, orders of appointment came to be issued in their
favour. The Zilla Panchayaths were recruiting Teachers to
the above schools for good length of time till they were
handed over the KREIS. Annexure-A5 dated 17.5.2010 is
the recruitment notification issued by the Deputy
Commissioner and Annexure-A6 prescribes the qualification.
In pursuant to the said notifications, candidates submitted
their applications and subsequently, they were asked to
undergo a written test and interviews also conducted.
Nehru Yuvaka Kendra was one of the Agency in several
districts through which the respondents got the orders of
appointment issued to the Teachers and Principals. Kenoics
was another organization chosen by the respondents to
issue the orders of appointment to the Teachers selected by
the Committee constituted by the respondents.
7. It is further case of the petitioners that their
appointment was not a back door entry. There was no
transgression of any rules. The selection was done after
issue of a notification, followed by a written test and Interview
and all the trappings of regular recruitment were followed
while making the said recruitment and there was no private
Agency in the picture till the selection took place. The Zilla
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
Panchayats at the instance of the respondents constituted a
Committee for recruitment of Teachers and Principals.
Private agencies were roped in thereafter for the reasons
best known to the respondents, and got issued orders of
appointment through the said agencies. The said agencies
are not contractors within the meaning of the Contract
Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act. None of the
respondents had taken permission to employ contract labour
nor the contractor engaged by the respondents had
registered himself/itself and obtained licenses as required
under the provisions of the said Act.
8. It is further case of the petitioners that when the
petitioners were appointed, there were no recruitment rules
in force as already stated. Thereafter, the Management of
the Schools was handed over to the KREIS by the
Government and the Zilla Panchayat. The KREIS started
exceeding its limits and therefore, the Government decided
to wind up KRIES at one point of time. But, KRIES
continued to exist and the Government backed out of the
proposal of winding it up for the reasons best known to it.
9. It is further case of the petitioners that ultimately,
the State Government finally decided to frame recruitment
rules for KRIES and Draft Recruitment Rules were framed by
the Government and the same were published and
objections were filed by several Teachers. Despite filing
objections, without considering the same, the Draft Rules
published were made final. The Rules provided for grant of
weightage to the petitioners and similarly situated Teachers
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
who were selected by the Committee constituted under the
Government Orders by the Zilla Panchayaths under the
Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner and appointed
through the agencies. By misinterpreting the Rules, the 3rd
respondent – KREIS only favoured the Teachers who were
recruited by KREIS, which was one of the Contractor at the
said point of time as it had no administrative control over the
Schools.
10. It is further case of the petitioners that in the
circumstances, Teachers were compelled to approach this
Court by filing Writ Petition Nos.20204-20364/2011 and
connected matters. This Court considering the rival
contentions of both the parties by its order dated 13.7.2012
allowed the said Writ Petitions in part and issued certain
directions directing the respondents therein to regularize the
Principals and Teachers appointed prior to 2004-05 and
continued in service as on the date of Absorption
Regulations, 2011 came into force subject to fulfilling the
other conditions. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court, KREIS filed Writ Appeal
No.5127/2012 and connected matters. The Division Bench
of this Court by its Judgment dated 28.2.2013 dismissed the
Appeals affirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge
that the respondents therein i.e, Principals/Teachers are
entitled for service weightage. Aggrieved by the said order,
the 3rd respondent – society also filed SLP (civil)
No.30845/2013 and connected matters, which came to be
dismissed on 9.9.2013. In the mean time, there were
series of discussions between the respondents and
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
representatives of Teachers, who were required to be
removed on re-doing select list. A Tippani dated 2.12.2014
came to be issued for publication of second provisional list
as per Annexure-E1.
11. It is further case of the petitioners that inspite of
the directions issued by this Court, affirmed by the Division
Bench and reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
select list of eligible candidates does not contain the names
of the petitioners and the same is illegal and the Teachers
who were appointed during the ‘no rule period’ cannot be
held to be not eligible after the rules are introduced.
Therefore, the inaction on the part of the respondents in not
selecting the petitioners is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21
of the constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioners are
before this Court for the reliefs sought for.
12. The respondents including the State Government
have not filed objections.
13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to
the lis.
14. Sri M. Narayana Bhat, Sri K.B. Narayana Swamy,
Sri N. Nagaraja Rao and Sri Deepak, learned counsel for the
petitioners in these writ petitions contended with vehemence
that select list has been prepared on the basis of the
particulars furnished by the Teachers appointed during the
pendency of the earlier proceedings. The said Teachers had
furnished factually incorrect particulars for the purpose of the
preparation of the list. If the select list is re-done, the
Principals and Teachers appointed would lose their position.
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
The present list is prepared on the basis of the information
furnished by the interested parties. The Annexure-E1 –
Tippani dated 2.12.2014 issued by the respondents is in
violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
They further contended that the names of the petitioners are
not included in the list which was published by the KREIS.
The publication of the list was brought to the notice of this
Court in Contempt Petition filed by the Teachers. It was
stated by the respondents that they have complied with the
orders passed by this Court. Recording the said statement,
the Contempt Proceedings were dropped. They would
further contend that the impugned Tippani as per Annexure-
E1 dated 2.12.2014 is issued without following the rules and
orders passed by this Court and the same is violative of
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the
same cannot be sustained. They further contended that the
writ petitions and writ appeals are all concluded as far back
as in the year 2012 and 2013 respectively. Despite lapse of
two years’ time as on the date of filing the present writ
petitions, the respondents did not comply the orders passed
by this Court. Therefore, the impugned action of the
respondents cannot be sustained and directions as sought
for shall be granted.
15. It is further contended that the petitioners had
given all their particulars in the earlier round of writ petitions.
None of the said facts were disputed. It was not the case of
the respondents in the earlier round of proceedings that the
petitioners are not entitled to weightage. The Division Bench
of this Court while confirming the order passed by the
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
learned Single Judge, has in categorical terms recorded a
finding that the petitioners are entitled to weightage and
regularization of their service. Now, it is not open to the
respondents to change the very basis of preparation of the
list. Therefore the impugned action of the respondents
cannot be sustained. It is further contended that since the
petitioners are entitled to award of 5% of marks for a year’s
service, for part of year’s service, proportionate weightage is
required to be extended. The services of the petitioners
were utilized by the respondents irrespective of their
academic qualification. Now, technicalities are sought to be
cited for depriving them of the weightage for each completed
year of service. This should not have been done by the
respondents. It is in utter violation of the directions issued by
the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petitions, which is
affirmed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals and re-
affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP. Therefore,
the petitioners sought to allow the writ petitions for the reliefs
sought for.
16. Per contra, Sri Nagaiah, learned counsel for the
3rd respondent in all these Writ Petitions sought to justify the
action of the respondents and contended that the 3rd
respondent has not directly appointed the petitioners and
they were appointed by the outside Agency under the control
of the 3rd respondent and inspite of following the procedure
and giving weightage, the petitioners were not selected. He
would further contend that in pursuance of the orders passed
by this Court and in terms of the Karnataka Residential
Educational Institutions Society (Cadre & Recruitment)
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
Regulations-2011, the 3rd respondent has prepared Tippani
as per Annexure-E1 dated 2.12.2014 to consider the
weightage of the petitioners. Inspite of the same, the
petitioners were not selected. Therefore, he sought to
dismiss all these writ petitions.
17. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the entire material on record carefully.
18. It is an undisputed fact that earlier all these
petitioners were before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.20204-
20364/2011 and connected matters seeking certain reliefs.
This Court considering the entire material on record has
recorded a finding that “pursuant to the recruitment
notification dated 27.4.2011, the respondents conducted
combined competitive examination. Respondents further
contend that the petitioners in the combined competitive
examination have not secured the qualifying marks required
for selection. Now, the respondents have published the final
selection list and the additional selection list. Admittedly, the
service weightage was not extended to the petitioners while
processing the final selection list and the additional selection
list. Therefore, the respondents have to re-issue the final
selection list by extending the benefit of service weightage to
the petitioners.” It has also recorded a finding that the
Absorption Regulations are not applicable to the non-
teaching staff. Ultimately, the said writ petitions came to be
partly allowed with the following directions:
i) Writ petitions are partly allowed
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
ii) The petitioners are not entitled for absorption
under the Absorption Regulations, 2011.
iii) The respondents shall regularize the Principals
and teachers appointed prior to 2004-2005 and
continued in service as on the date of
Absorption Regulations, 2011 came into force
subject to fulfilling the other conditions.
iv) It is declared that all the Principals and teachers
including the petitioners herein appointed on or
after 2004-2005 are entitled for the benefit of
service weightage as specified in Recruitment
Regulations, 2011.
v) The respondents to complete the selection
process pursuant to the recruitment notification
dated 27.4.2011 by granting the benefit of
service weightage to the petitioners and all
other similarly situated Principals and teachers.
vi) Since respondents have already processed the
applications and issued final selection list and
additional selection list, they have to redo the
process of selection by extending the benefit of
service weightage to the petitioners and
similarly situated candidates.
vii) Till the completion of selection process as
stated above the present placement of
petitioners and others who are continuing in
service shall not be disturbed.
viii) The prayer in the writ petitions in so far as it
relates to quashing of recruitment notification
dated 27.4.2011 is hereby rejected.
ix) The writ petitions filed by the non-teaching staff
are hereby dismissed.
19. It is also not in dispute that, being aggrieved by
the said directions/orders passed by the learned single
Judge of this Court, the 3rd respondent-the Karnataka
Residential Educational Institutions Society filed
W.A.No.5127/2012 and connected appeals. The Division
Bench of this Court, considering the entire material on
record, recorded a finding that, “While dealing with the
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
regularization of service of temporary employees, the
Hon’ble supreme Court had repeatedly held that, where
initial entry was legal, the candidates were qualified,
appointment made against the sanctioned post, long service
would entitle them to be candidate for awarding service
weightage. On the other hand, if the initial entry into service
was illegal or where the candidate did not possess the
qualification prescribed for the post, the question of awarding
service weightage does not arise. In the instant case, the
initial entry into service is not back door entry. The
candidates are qualified and eligible to be appointed as
teachers. In pursuance to the permission granted by the
State Government prescribing the qualification to the post,
the respondents were appointed by the concerned Zilla
Panchayats. All the respondents (present petitioners) have
necessary qualification to the said posts. There is no
differences between the appointment made by the appellant
Society (3rd respondent herein) as well as the Zilla
Panchayats on outsourcing. Hence, there is no infirming or
irregularity in the order passed by the learned single Judge
directing the appellant to award service weightage to the
respondents also (present petitioners).
20. The said order passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.A.No.5127/2012 and connected appeals
confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge has
been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order
dated 09.09.2013 in SLP No.30845/2013.
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
21. In view of the above, the learned single Judge and
the Division Bench, in categorical terms, held that the
petitioners’ entry into service is not back door entry. They
were qualified and eligible for being appointed as teachers,
in pursuance of the permission granted by the State
Government prescribing the qualification to the post and
accordingly, petitioners were appointed by the concerned
Zilla Panchayath. All the petitioners have necessary
qualification to the said post and there is no difference
between the appointment made by the present respondent
No.3-Society and the Zilla Panchayath on outsourcing.
Therefore, the present petitioners are entitled to award of
service weightage. The said concurrent finding of fact
recorded by this Court based on the material documents, has
reached finality, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
dismissed the SLP filed by the respondent No.3.
22. In view of the above, the 3rd respondent is bound
to follow the directions issued by the learned single Judge,
confirmed by the Division Bench and reaffirmed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and issue final selection list after
giving service weightage. Admittedly, as on today, the
respondents have not published the list, considering the
directions issued by the learned single Judge, confirmed by
the Division Bench and reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
23. Very curiously, the 3rd respondent issued Tippani
dated 02.12.2014 as per Annexure-E1 and formulated
certain guidelines. When the learned single Judge, and the
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
Division Bench of this Court, in categorical terms held that all
the petitioners were not appointed through back door entry
and they were selected after following the procedure and
therefore, they are entitled to service weightage, it is not
open for the 3rd respondent to prepare a Tippani which has
no source either in the recruitment rules or in the observation
made by this Court. It seems that the Tippani issued by the
3rd respondents is only with an intention to remove the basis
of directions issued by this Court indirectly which is
impermissible in law. Therefore, the Annexure-E1/Tippani
dated 02.12.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent cannot be
sustained.
24. Infact, what is found in Annexure-E1/Tippani is the
meaning of the words ‘completed year of service’ and
continuous service’ as provided in Section 2a and 2b of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which reads as under:
2a. “Completed year of service” means continuous
service for one year.
2b. “Continuous Service” means-An employee
shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if
he has, for that period, been in uninterrupted service,
including service, which may be interrupted on account
of sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty without
leave (not sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty
without leave (not being absence as break in service
has been passed in accordance with the standing
orders, rules or regulations governing the employees of
the establishment), lay-off, strike or a lock-out or
cessation of work not due to any fault of the employee,
whether such uninterrupted or interrupted service was
rendered before or after the commencement of this Act;”
25. Admittedly, all the assertions made by the
petitioners in the present writ petitions have not been denied
either by the 3rd respondent or the State Government. The
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
State Government has been a silent spectator sitting on the
fence to over see the drama between the petitioners and the
3rd respondent which is never expected by this Court. When
the State Government was a party in the earlier Writ
Petitions and Writ Appeals before this Court, it is for the
State Government to come forward in the interest of justice
to direct the 3rd respondent to comply the order passed by
this Court in respect of petitioners and other similarly situated
persons. The same has not been done.
26. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the inaction on
the part of the 3rd respondent in not considering the
directions issued by this Court cannot be tolerated.
27. At this stage, Sri Nagaiah, learned counsel for the
3rd respondent brought to the notice of the Court that in
pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, selection list
has been issued as per Annexure-D by giving service
weightage, but petitioners have not been selected. Though
the submission of the learned counsel is to be accepted,
there is no document showing that the petitioners’ case is
rejected. Therefore, the order passed in respect of other
candidates does not amount to compliance of the directions
issued by this Court. It is the duty of the respondents to pass
specific order in respect of petitioners as to whether they are
selected or not. The same has not been done. The inaction
on the part of the respondent in not considering the
directions issued by this Court cannot be sustained.
28. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions
are allowed. The impugned Tippani dated 02.12.2014 vide
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
Annexure-E1 is without any basis and in utter violation of
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and cannot
be sustained. Accordingly, Annexure-E1 is quashed only
insofar as petitioners are concerned. A writ of mandamus is
issued to the 3rd respondent – The Karnataka Residential
Educational Institutions Society, to grant 5% weightage to
each academic year of service of the petitioners irrespective
of the date of appointment and proportionate weightage to
the service which is less than one half of the academic year,
in terms of the Absorption Rules and pass appropriate
Orders individually in respect of each of the petitioner, in
accordance with law, within an outer limit of 12 weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order, strictly in
terms of the orders passed by the learned single Judge,
confirmed by the Division Bench and reaffirmed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Ordered accordingly.”
In W.A.No.360/2020 and Connected matters:
“This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent in Writ
Petitions No.8113-8131/2015 impugning the order dated
22.10.2019. In terms of the impugned order, the note dated
2.12.2014 marked at Annexure-E1 is quashed in so far as
the petitioners are concerned, and in addition, a writ of
mandamus is issued to the 3rd respondent-Karnataka
Residential Educational Institutions Society (Hereinafter
referred to as ‘Society’ for short) to grant 5% weightage to
each academic year of service to the petitioners irrespective
of the date of appointment.
– 28 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026HC-KAR
2. The Learned Single Judge has also directed
proportionate weightage to be given even if the period of
service is less than one-half of the academic year.
3. The grievance in this appeal filed by the Society is
confined to the portion of the order directing proportionate
weightage directed to be provided for the candidates for the
period of service which is less than an academic year.
4. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of
the case can be summarized as under:
– The petitioners were appointed as teachers/
principals and it is further stated that each of the petitioners
is having the requisite educational qualifications for the post.
The petitioners were appointed in Morarji Desai Residential
School/Morarji Desai Residential School for Minorities/Kittur
Rani Chenamma School/Ekalavya Model Residential School
situated in different places in Karnataka. It is not in dispute
that the said schools are run by society.
5. It is further stated that on the filing date of the
writ petitions, about 600 schools were coming under the
control of the Department of School Welfare and 50-60
schools coming under the control of the Minority Department
of the Government of Karnataka. It is further claimed that
earlier the above-referred schools came under five
categories viz.,
(i) Morarji Desai Residential School meant for students
from the BCM category/SC-ST category
(ii) Ekalavya Model Residential School.
– 29 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
(iii) Kittur Rani Chenamma School meant for girls.
(iv) A B Vajpayee Residential School having co-education
(v) Moraji Desai Residential School for Minorities.
6. The State Government, by its order dated
22.06.2001 marked at Annexure A1, proposed transferring
the residential schools to the Society. Later, the Government
decided to continue the schools under its management vide
order dated 5.10.2004 marked in Annexure A2 to the writ
petition.
7. It is further stated that the Government vide
order dated 21.10.2009 constituted a committee to recruit the
teachers for the aforementioned institutions. The recruitment
process involved written tests and interviews. The
reservation policy of the State was also made applicable and
based on merit and as per the reservation policy,
appointments were made and the orders of appointment
were issued in favour of the petitioners.
8. In terms of the notification dated 17.5.2010 at
Annexure A5, applications were invited for the post of a
teacher, and qualifications were prescribed as per Annexure
A6 to the writ petition.
9. It is the case of the petitioners that all of them
were recruited under the recruitment policy by following the
due process prescribed. It is stated that no rule relating to
recruitment is violated while recruiting the petitioners. It is
also stated by the petitioners that specific recruitment rules
were not in place when they were appointed, however, the
– 30 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
order dated 21.10.2009 was in place which governed the
recruitment process.
10. It is further stated that the management of the
schools was handed over to Society and as the Society
exceeded its limits, the Government decided to wind up the
Society. However later, the Government withdrew its decision
to wind up the Society and accordingly, the Society exists
even today. Later the recruitment rules were framed which
would govern the recruitment by the Society and objections
were filed by several teachers to the draft recruitment rules
published by the Government. It is contended that without
considering the merits of the objections filed, the
Government overruled the objections.
11. The rules framed by the Government provided
for the grant of weightage to the petitioners and similarly
situated teachers who were selected by the Committee
constituted under the Government Order or by the Zilla
Panchayat under the chairmanship of the Deputy
Commissioner. However, by misrepresenting the Rules, the
Society granted weightage to only those teachers who were
recruited by the Society. In the above factual scenario, writ
petitions were filed in W.P. No.20204/2011 and connected
matters. In terms of the impugned order dated 13.07.2012,
writ petitions were allowed-in-part, and directions were
issued to the respondents in the said writ petitions to
regularise the teachers and principals appointed before
2004-05 and continued in service as on the date of
Absorption Regulations, 2011 subject to fulfilling other
– 31 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
eligibility criteria. The appeals filed by the Society in Writ
Appeal 5127/2012 and connected matters are dismissed
vide order dated 28.2.2013. The Special Leave Petition filed
against the afore-mentioned order in SLP No.30845/2013 is
also dismissed on 9.9.2013.
12. Pursuant to this, the impugned note dated
2.12.2014 is issued and the list of selected teachers is done
afresh. Said note dated 2.12.2014 is called into question
before the learned Single Judge.
13. The learned Single Judge after hearing the
parties to the proceeding has allowed the petitions and
quashed the impugned note dated 2.12.2014 at Annexure E1
and directed the Society to grant 5% weightage to each
academic year of service irrespective of the date of
appointment. The order quashing Annexure – E1 has attained
finality as it is accepted by the Society as well as the State.
The challenge is only to the order directing proportionate
weightage for service less than a completed year.
14. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties to the proceeding.
15. It is the contention of the learned Senior
counsel Sri M R Rajagopal for the appellants, that directions
issued by the learned Single Judge to provide proportionate
service weightage to the service which is less than an
academic year in terms of The Karnataka Residential
Educational Institutions Society (Cadre and Recruitment)
Regulations, 2011 (For short ‘Regulations, 2011’) is illegal
and violates the Regulations, 2011.
– 32 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
16. It is urged that a 5% weightage can be provided
to each completed year of service and not to those who have
not completed one year.
17. It is also urged by the learned Senior counsel
that the impugned order is in the teeth of the judgment
rendered in W.P.No.20204/2011 and connected cases which
is confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.5127/2012
and connected matters. The attention of the Court is invited
to the operative portion of the order in the
W.P.No.20204/2011 and connected matters. The relevant
portion reads as under:
“(ii) the petitioners are not entitled to absorption
under the Absorption, regulations, 2011.
(iii) the respondent shall regularise the principal and
teachers appointed before 2004-2005 and
continue in service as of the date of Absorption,
regulations, 2011
(iv) It is declared that all the principals and teachers
including the petitioners herein appointed on or
after 2004-2005 are entitled to the benefit of
service weightage as specified in Recruitment
Regulations, 2011.”
18. In support of their contentions, learned counsel
for the Society has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the following cases:
(i) MANISH vs ROHINI GOYAL ((2010)4 SCC
393)
(ii) STATE OF PUNJAB vs SINGHALA (1994(1)
SCC 175)
(iii) KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION vs ASHRAFULLA KHAN
((2002)2 SCC 560)
– 33 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
19. Learned Senior counsel Smt.Susheela,
appearing for the employees/respondents urged that:
(a) the expression “completed year” in the Rules 2011
is not defined as such the learned Single Judge is justified in
directing proportionate weightage to be given to the
candidates even if they have not completed one academic
year.
(b) the State has not filed any appeal against the
order passed by the learned Single Judge and the financial
implication of the impugned order is on State and not the
appellant-Society. It is further argued that since the State
has accepted the order passed by the learned Single Judge,
the appeal must be dismissed and the benefit of
proportionate weightage shall be given to the
respondents/employees.
(c) in terms of the interim order, passed by this
Court, some of the respondents are already employed and
their employment should not be disturbed at this juncture.
(d) Even as per the service particulars furnished by
the appellants, it is apparent that the date of joining of
employees was not the same and the employees were asked
to join on different dates depending upon the admissions of
the students and the opening of various schools run by the
appellants.
(e) Even under the Regulations 2011, it is specified
that the regularisations are framed as a one-time measure,
to provide relief to the employees who were serving under
the society as such the learned Single Judge is justified in
– 34 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
directing proportionate weightage be given to the employees
who have not completed one year.
20. This Court has considered the contentions
raised at the bar and perused the records.
21. As far as the contention of the appellants that the
impugned order is contrary to the orders passed in
W.P. No.20204/2011 and connected cases which is
confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.5127/2012 is
concerned, it is to be noticed that the Society has not raised
this contention before the learned Single Judge by
contending that the contesting respondents/employees were
parties to the said proceedings. The appellants have not
filed any statement of objections before the learned Single
Judge. Even before this Court, it is not pointed out, as to
which of the respondents were parties in the earlier
proceedings. Thus, the contention that the contesting
respondents are precluded from claiming any relief in view of
the finding in paragraphs No. (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the operative
portion of the order in the aforementioned Writ Petitions is
untenable.
22. From perusal of the reliefs claimed in Writ Petition
No.20204/2011 and other connected matters as well as in
subsequent Writ Petitions filed by the respondents and
considering the relief granted, this Court is of the view that
the previous proceedings will not come in the way of
considering the claim of the petitioners.
23. More importantly, the question of “proportionate
weightage” with reference to the expression “every
– 35 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
completed year” did not arise in the earlier proceedings and
no finding is recorded on the said issue now raised The
scope of the expression, “every completed year” found in the
Regulations 2011 was not considered and decided in the
earlier writ proceeding.
24. The next question is, “Whether the learned Single
Judge is justified in issuing a direction to provide
proportionate weightage even if one year of service is not
completed while awarding the marks?”
25. The relevant regulations required to be
considered for adjudication of the present appeals are
extracted as under:
Weightage for contract principals
Notwithstanding anything contained in the cadre and
recruitment regulations of the societyWhile preparing the merit list, a weightage of five
percentage (5%) for each completed year of service shall be
given subject to a maximum of forty percentage adding to the
total percentage of Postgraduate degree, B.Ed and
Competitive Examination in respect of candidates appointed
by the Karnataka Residential Education Institutions Society
who are working as principals in Morarji Desai/Kitturu Rani
Chennamma Residential Schools on contract basis as a one
time measure.
Weightage for contract teachers
Notwithstanding anything contained in these
regulations
– 36 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026HC-KAR
While preparing the merit list, a weightage of five
percentages for each completed year of service shall be
given subject to a maximum of forty percentage adding to the
total percentage of degree, BE.d, B.P.Ed. and competitive
examination in respect of candidates appointed by Karnataka
Residential Education Institutions Society and who are
working as Assistant Teachers/Principals in Morarji Desai
Residential Schools on contract basis as a one time
measure.
26. For all other categories of teachers, the
expressions “for each completed year of service” and “on
contract basis as a one-time measure” are also incorporated
in the Regulations 2011 providing for weightage.
27. It is required to be noticed that the expression
“each completed year of service” is not defined in the
Regulations, 2011. It is not disputed that the date of entry of
the teachers in the given academic year is not the same but
varies. The date of entry is different for different teachers in
different schools. The different date of entry is said to be
because of different date of opening of schools owing to lack
or delayed admissions of students. The proportionate
weightage has not been awarded on the basis of uniform
criteria and therefore, the discrepancies in awarding the
marks have crept in.
28. On reading the regulations extorted above, it is
apparent that the measures taken for providing proportionate
weightage are one-time measures.
– 37 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
29. Admittedly, the expression “each completed
year of service” is not defined under the Regulations 2011.
And it is also an admitted fact that the contract employees
were employed only for a period of ten months on a contract
basis. For the remaining two months of the year, they are not
provided with any salary. This being the position, the
contention of the appellants that weightage can be provided
only for the “completed year of service” holds no water.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and
also given the fact that the respondent employees have put
in a considerable length of service on being recruited in an
open competitive recruitment process conducted by the State
or the instrumentality of the State, strict interpretation
canvassed by the is results in injustice to the employees
who are otherwise qualified to be regularised in service. The
order of the learned single judge directing proportionate
weightage only entitles certain percentage of marks to be
taken into consideration to process the claim for
regularisation of those candidates who have put in some
service after being selected in a competitive selection
process. It does not affect or take away the rights of the
persons who have put in more years of service.
30. Assuming that all the contesting respondents
were parties in previous writ petitions and writ appeals, the
Co Ordinate bench of this Court in the previous round of
litigation in Writ Appeal No.5127/2012 has concluded that the
entry into service is not a back door entry so far as the
petitioners are concerned. The Court has given a finding
that the candidates were qualified and eligible to be
– 38 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
appointed as teachers and has dismissed the appeal filed by
the Society. It is also observed in the said order that “The
appellant society as par as possible, try to accommodate the
respondents, if, after giving service weightage they are
selected without disturbing the candidates who are already
selected and appointed”. The order passed in writ appeal is
confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated
09.09.2013 in SLP No.30854/2013.
31. This being the position, the order passed by the
learned single judge in directing proportionate weightage to
the employees who have not completed on academic year
cannot be said to be an illegal order to interfere in an intra
Court appeal.
32. The ambiguity in the language employed in not
correctly defining the completed year, particularly in a
situation where the employees are paid salary only for 10
months, learned single Judge is justified in holding that the
petitioners should be given a proportionate weightage.
33. It is also required to be noticed that all the
institutions run by the appellant society are admitted to grant
aid by the State. Thus, the salaries of the employees to be
regularised in terms of the impugned order are to be paid by
the State. The State has not preferred any appeal against the
impugned order and has accepted the order.
34. In terms of the interim order, some of the
respondents are already employed and continuing in service.
And it is also required to be noticed that the regularisation of
the respondent/employees is subject to the respondent/
– 39 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
employees fulfilling other eligibility criteria and securing
requisite marks on applying proportionate weightage and it is
submitted that all the respondents may not qualify even if
proportionate weightage is provided for the service less than
a year.
35. It is also required to be noticed that
regularisation was denied in view of Annexure-E1, the note
issued by the Government which was questioned before the
learned single judge. The learned single judge has quashed
Annexure-E1 in so far as the petitioners are concerned. In
fact, in terms of guidelines issued under Annexure -E1, the
claim of the respondent/employees was rejected by the
State. However, the portion of the order quashing Annexure –
E1 is not under challenge. The challenge is only to the order
of the single judge directing proportionate weightage.
36. As already noticed the Regulations provide for
one time measure. The number of employees who may have
their services regularised if proportionate weightage is given
are also said to be few. Also considering the age of the
respondent/ employees this Court is of the view that the
learned single judge is justified in directing proportionate
weightage be given to the employees who have completed
less than a year in service.
37. We have also considered the ratio laid down in the
judgments cited by the appellants. The aforementioned
judgements are delivered in a different set of facts and those
judgments; no question is decided under Regulations 2011.
– 40 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
Hence, the ratio in the said judgments does not apply to the
present case.
38. For the reasons recorded supra, under the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court
does not find any reason to interfere in the exercise of
powers under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act,
with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
39. It is stated that respondents No.5 to 7 in
WA No.652/2020 are already appointed. Since, Writ Appeals
No.650/2020, 652/2020, 675/2020, and 693/2020 are filed
raising similar questions and arising from the same
impugned order, the said appeals are also required to be
dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.”
4. Under these circumstances, the present petition is also
disposed of by directing the concerned respondents to address the
grievance of the petitioners and consider their representations at
Annexures-AA, AA1 to AA18 dated 05-05-2026, 27-04-2026,
04-05-2026, 30-04-2026, 27-04-2026, 29-04-2026, 29-04-2026,
29-04-2026, 29-04-2026, 25-09-2025, 04-05-2026, 04-05-2026,
04-05-2026, 04-05-2026, 04-05-202, 04-05-2026, 05-11-2025 and
05-05-2026, respectively and take appropriate decision / pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two
– 41 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24780
WP No. 15242 of 2026
HC-KAR
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, bearing in
mind the judgments of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in
the cases of The Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions
Society Vs. Mounesh – W.A.No.545/2021 dated 07.11.2022 and
The Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society Vs.
Vishwanath M.S., – W.A.No.360/2020 and Connected matters
dated 19.07.2023 and the order the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Vishwanath M.S. and Ors. Vs. The State of
Karnataka – W.P.Nos.8113-8131/2015 and connected matters
dated 22.10.2019.
5. Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
LDC/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 60
