IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO.102744/2021 (S-KAT)

Between:

Malakari Kalliguddi S/o. Pundalik,

Age 27 years, Occ: Nil,

R/o.: Naganur, Pin-591224,

Tq.: Gokak, Dist.: Belagavi.

… Petitioner

(By Shri Shriharsh A.Neelopant, Advocate)

And:

The Assistant Secretary,

Karnataka Public Service Commission,

Udyog Soudha, Park House Road,

Vidhan Soudha, Bengaluru-560001.

… Respondent

(By Shri S.S. Beturmath for Shri K.L. Patil, Advocate)

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of

the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ or director

or order in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned

order

dated

20.05.2021,

passed

in

Application

No.3869/2020,

passed

by

the

Karnataka

State

Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, as per Annexure-C and

also

to

quash

the

impugned

endorsement

dated

20.09.2019 issued by the respondent as per Annexure-A6,

to the application No.3869/2020 & etc.,

: 2 :

This writ petition coming on for preliminary

hearing, this day, M.G.S. Kamal, J, made the following:

O R D E R

1.

The present writ petition is filed by the

petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2021

dismissing the Application No.3869/2020, passed by the

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for

short “the Tribunal”).

2.

The facts leading upto filing of the present

petition briefly stated are that the petitioner had applied

for the post of Second Division Assistant with the

respondent, Karnataka Public Service Commission on

01.09.2017

under

Kannada

Medium.

The

petitioner

appeared for written examination on 11.02.2019 with

register No.3093694. That due to inadvertence and

oversight, the petitioner has not marked the medium of

instructions in the OMR Answer Sheet and the said mistake

was unintentional and bonafide. That upon learning about

the said mistake, the petitioner made a representation on

29.03.2019 to the respondent and requested to condone

the said mistake and to announce the result. That the

: 3 :

respondent, Commission published the list of eligible

candidates for the post Second Division Assistant on

08.01.2020 and called for document verification. That in

the said list, the name of the petitioner did not find place

only for the reason that the petitioner had not mentioned

the medium of instructions in the OMR Answer Sheet. That

when the petitioner had tallied the answers marked by him

in the OMR Answer Sheet, he had passed the examination

conducted by the respondent Commission. The respondent,

issued an endorsement dated 20.09.2019 rejecting the

representation made by the petitioner on the premise that

there is no provision for correction of OMR Answer Sheet

after completion of examination. Thus, being aggrieved by

the said endorsement dated 20.09.2019 issued by the

respondent

Commission,

the

petitioner

had

filed

Application No.3869/2020 before the Tribunal.

3.

The respondent Commission filed its statement

of objections to the said application. The respondent

contended that the petitioner had made an application

online for the post of Second Division Assistant as per

Annexure-A1 with the register No.3093694 and the

: 4 :

Competitive Examination for the said post was held on

11.02.2018. That the publication of eligible list of

candidates of 1:3 by the Commission was for the post of

Second Division Assistant for document verification on

15.03.2019 and not on 01.08.2020. That the name of the

petitioner did not find place only for the reason that the

applicant had not mentioned the language opted in the

OMR Answer Sheet. While issuing the admission ticket

itself, the respondent Commission had issued different

instructions to be followed by the candidates making it

clear that failure to abide by the sa