K Sundresh v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 21518 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

K SUNDRESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O K. BASAN GOUDA, R/AT NEAR ESWARI TEMPLE, VTC BALLATGI, PO BALLATGI, MANVI, RAICHUR, KARNATAKA - 584 129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUHAMMAD SHAMIL, ADV.)

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶2KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY (KEA) REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 012. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA)

Location: High Court of Karnataka

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER/WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARIA) QUASH THE IMPUGNED INTERIM ORDER DATED 07/07/2026 ISSUED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN A.NO 3150/2026 (ANNEXURE-A)B) QUASH THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION DATED 01/06/2026 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.ED/KEA/08/ NE.V/2026(RPC), ED/KEA/09/NE.VI/2026(KK) (ANNEXURE-A9)

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning order dated 07.07.2026 in Application No.3150/2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal') wherein the Tribunal refused to grant interim order as prayed for.

¶2Heard learned counsel Sri.Muhammad Shamil for petitioner and learned Additional Government

Advocate Sri.K.R.Rajendra for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶3Learned counsel for petitioner Sri.Muhammad Shamil would submit that the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer and submits that in terms of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, only persons with qualification from the University established by law and carries the accreditation of the Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR or AICTE) shall be eligible. Learned counsel would submit that under addendum dated

01.06.2026 (Annexure-A9) Karnataka Examination Authority permitted the candidates with B.Sc (Agri) from RAI Technology University (UGD Approved) to apply for the vacancies notified. It is his contention that the said RAI Technology University is neither accredited to ICAR nor AICTE. Therefore, addendum dated 01.06.2026 is opposed to the existing Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Hence, he

submits that the petitioner sought for stay of the said addendum and the Tribunal refused to grant interim order as prayed for. It is his submission that the petitioner has made out prima facie case by contending that the addendum is opposed to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the said contention.

¶4Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.K.R.Rajendra for respondents would submit that the Tribunal rightly rejected the interim prayer of the petitioner and submits that the Tribunal has observed that addendum notification dated

01.06.2026 (Annexure-A9) would be subject to the outcome of the present Application. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition requires to be rejected.

¶5On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order

dated 07.07.2026 in Application No.3150/2026 passed by the Tribunal.

¶6The process of selection is by written examination. The main contention of the petitioner is that RAI Technology University is not accredited to ICAR or AICTE. The said contention is to be considered on hearing the respondents. The respondents have to place on record whether the RAI Technology University is accredited to ICAR or AICTE. Furthermore, when the selection is by competitive written examination, permitting candidates to write the examination who have obtained the degree from RAI Technology University would not prejudice the case of the petitioner. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the addendum notification dated

01.06.2026 (Annexure-A9) would be subject to outcome of the Application pending before the Tribunal. Granting stay would dislocate the entire selection process.

¶7For the reasons recorded above, writ petition stands rejected. As the matter relates to selection and appointment, the Tribunal is requested to dispose of the Application as early as possible.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25