IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 25940 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1. KAVYASHREE Y., D/O. YOGENDRA KUMAR M.D., W/O. SHYAM G.G., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SULUGODU, BALEHITLU, BULLAPURA MALLIGE POST, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIMOGGA, KARNATAKA - 577 415.

Digitally …PETITIONER signed by VINUTHA B S (BY SRI SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)

Location:

High Court of Karnataka AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, (SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY), M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 56001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, K R CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

3. SELECTION AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS ADMINISTRATION, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

4. NAWAB KHAN A., S/O. AKBAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT CHIRADONI ROAD, SAGARAPETE, BASAVAPATNA, CHENNGIRI, DAVANAGERE, KARNATAKA - 577 551.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AAG A/W SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO T3; SRI ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.09.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WP PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT IN A.No-1003/2023 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC,.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri H.R. Showri, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Sri V.G. Bhanuprakash, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri Zameer Pasha, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

2. This writ petition is filed by the applicant in Application No.1003/2023, assailing the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal').

3. The brief facts are that a notification was issued for the post of Graduate Primary School Teachers for Classes VI to VIII. The petitioner submitted an application claiming the benefit of the Project Displaced Person Quota (PDP). In the year 1987, the property belonging to the petitioner’s family was acquired for the construction of the Varahi Hydro Electric Power Station. The petitioner’s family consists of her father, mother and younger sister. The petitioner possesses B.A. and B.Ed. degrees and secured 61.8253% marks in the examination held on 21.05.2022 and 22.05.2022. As on the date of the application, the petitioner was married and had mentioned her marital status as married in the application. The petitioner was not considered for selection and thereafter submitted representations. A provisional selection list of candidates was announced without including the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking appointment under the PDP quota.

3.1 The respondent-authorities before the Tribunal contended that the certificate was issued in the name of the petitioner’s father. It was further contended that, as per Rule 9(1AA), Explanation (2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short, ‘the 1977 Rules’), only an unmarried daughter residing with the project displaced person and dependent on him is eligible. It was also contended that, in view of the petitioner being married, she is not entitled to claim the benefit of the PDP quota. It was further contended that if the case of the petitioner is accepted for appointment, the selection of respondent No.4 would be affected. Hence, respondent No.4 was also made a party to the proceedings.

3.2 The fourth respondent contended that the certificate produced by the petitioner is dated 13.10.2022, whereas the notification is dated 21.03.2022. It was further contended that