IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 22902 OF 2021 (S-PRO)

BETWEEN:

SYED SAMEER

S/O LATE SYED ZAMEER

41 YEARS,

R/AT 183, 2B MAIN ROAD,

BANNIMANTAP SIDDQUE NAGAR,

MYSORE - 15 …PETITIONER

Digit ally

(BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SR. COUNSEL FOR

signed by SRI. DIVYATHEJ A.B., ADVOCATE)

SHILPABAI S

Location: AND:

HIGH

COURT OF

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU - 560 001

2. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR GENERAL

AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 560 001.

3. HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSORE - 570 001

4. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT MYSORE - 570 001

5. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.A. AHMED, AAG A/W SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R5 SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE R4 ORDERED BY R3 AT ANNEXURE-E. DIRECT R1 TO IMPLEMENT THE SECTION 33 AND 34 OF RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016 AND PROVIDE RESERVATION BENEFITS IN PROMOTION TO PETITIONER. CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PROMOTE THE PETITIONER TO THE NEXT CADE OF SHERISTER.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging an endorsement dated 18.10.2021 vide Annexure-E.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Second Division Assistant ("SDA") in 1999 and promoted as First Division Assistant ("FDA") in 2014. The petitioner's grievance is that despite there is an Act to protect the interests of a person with disabilities and a reservation for them, still there is no implementation of the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

4. The petitioner submitted a representation dated

20.09.2021 to respondent No.3 to provide a reservation in promotion. He submitted one more representation to respondent No.1 on 22.09.2021.

5. The petitioner again submitted a representation seeking to provide reservation in promotion to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 18/21.10.2021 vide Annexure-E stating that the requisition of the petitioner cannot be considered. Further, on 04.02.2025, vide Annexure- N, respondent No.4 passed an endorsement stating that, the requisition of the petitioner will be considered with respect to the orders which will be passed in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition.

6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawat for Sri.Divyatej.A.B, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a person of benchmark disability with a disability of 55%. Thus, the petitioner sought for reservation in promotion in terms of Section 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short 'the PwD Act') and the same was not considered by respondent No.3 on the ground that, there is no Government order for implementation of the same, which is contrary to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, in Miscellaneous Application No.2171 of 2020, in Civil Appeal No.1567 of 2017, disposed of on 28.09.2021. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, respondent No.3 will implement the provision of Section 34 of PwD Act, only once the State Government issues instructions in that regard and at this stage, the writ petition of the petitioner is premature. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

9. On 27.11.2025, le