Karnataka High Court
Dr Gopala A vs Karnataka State Eligibility Test ... on 14 November, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
WP No.20935 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.20935 OF 2021 (EDN/RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. GOPALA A.
S/O. LATE SHRI ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.3, SNEHA NIVAS,
9TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
FURTHER EXTENSION,
BENGALURU-560086.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE ELIGIBILITY TEST
(KSET) CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE,
MOULYA BHAVAN,
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE,
MANASAGANGOTHRI,
MYSURU-570 006.
(REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR)
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
A BODY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ACT, 1956,
BAHADUR SHA ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI-110002.
(REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN)
-2-
WP No.20935 of 2021
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGH EDUCATION,
SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
2ND GATE, 6TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING.
(REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARIHANT R.SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T.P.RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
NOTIFICATION TITLED "CUT OFF MARKS AND PERCENTAGES
OF SUBJECTS OF KSET-2021 EXAMINATION HELD ON 25TH
JULY 2021" DATED 02.11.2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN
SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER'S SUBJECT AT
SUBJECT CODE 18 IS CONCERNED ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 04.09.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No.20935 of 2021
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
The petitioner who is presently working as Assistant
Professor in the Government Law College, Chamarajnagar,
is aggrieved of his non-accreditation in the Karnataka
State Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as 'KSET' for
short). The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:
A. Call for the records.
B. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order
or Direction to quash the impugned Notification
titled "Cut off marks and Percentages of subjects
of KSET-2021 Examination held on 25th July,
2021" dated 02nd November, 2021 produced at
Annexure-A in so far as it relates to the
Petitioner's subject at Subject Code 18 is
concerned issued by the Respondent;
C. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order
or Direction to set aside Impugned Notification
regarding 'Conditions for Eligible Candidates' dated
2nd November 2021, produced at Annexure-B
issued by the Respondent;
D. Declare the Petitioner as eligible by taking into
consideration of the Aggregate score of the
petitioner in Law Subject in KSET-2021
Examination as per UGC formula and Karnataka
-4-
WP No.20935 of 2021
State Reservation policy as prescribed in KSET-
2021 Notification dated 06th February 2021;
E. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order,
or direction to quash Annexure-D of the
Notification dated 6th February, 2021 to the extent
it prescribes the impugned formula for
determining eligibility for the posts under KSET-
2021.
F. To pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Respondent No.1-KSET, a Nodal Agency, has
been established by the State Government in coordination
with the Government of India to accredit teachers, certify
them as eligible for being appointed to the post of
Lecturers and Assistant Professors. Having regard to the
Education Policy, 1986, the Government of India
envisaged qualifying tests to be conducted and to certify
only those candidates who, besides fulfilling the minimum
academic qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer,
have qualified in a comprehensive test to be specifically
conducted for the purpose, will be certified as eligible for
-5-
WP No.20935 of 2021
appointment as Lecturer. Respondent No.1-KSET, in
consultation with respondent No.2-University Grants
Commission conducts eligibility tests in the State of
Karnataka. The petitioner responded to an
invitation/notification issued by respondent No.1-KSET on
06.02.2021 and filed an application to take up the test, for
the post of Assistant Professor, in the subject-Law. The
results of the examination were declared in the official
website of respondent No.1 on 02.11.2021 and the
petitioner was declared as "not eligible", and
consequently, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner
raising a challenge to the declaration of results in the
impugned notification at Annexure-A dated 02.11.2021,
the subsequent amendment as permitted, the petitioner
has also raised challenge to the "conditions for eligible
candidates" in the impugned notification dated 06.02.2021
where a formula is prescribed for determining eligibility.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
procedural criteria for declaration of KSET results, as
found in the impugned notification dated 06.02.2021 at
-6-
WP No.20935 of 2021
Annexure-D prescribes 6% of the candidates who appear
in both the papers, namely, Paper-I and Paper-II of KSET,
to be accredited. However, although procedure prescribed
subject-wise and category-wise distribution, nevertheless,
the formula prescribed in the impugned notification, does
not adhere to such selection, subject-wise. It is submitted
that the State Government has enacted the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes (Reservation and Appointment etc.) Act, 1990
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1990' for short) to
provide for reservation in the appointments or the posts in
the State Civil Services etc. and in the educational
institutions established and maintained by the State
Government. The State Government, through Statute has
prescribed reservations to the Scheduled Castes at 15%
and Scheduled Tribes at 3% respectively. It is submitted
that in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1990,
reservation to the persons belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
should be provided in every cadre, department-wise.
-7-
WP No.20935 of 2021
4. Learned counsel submits that having regard to
the mandate for reservation as found in Article 16(4) of
the Constitution of India, the State Government has made
provision for reservation in appointments and posts to give
adequate representation in the services under the State.
It is submitted that the procedural criteria prescribed in
the impugned notification seeks to give subject-wise
representation to the persons belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes,
nevertheless, in the final analysis, the eligibility is
declared, giving a go by to the subject-wise requirement.
In order to drive home the point, it is pointed out from
Annexure-A-notification dated 02.11.2021 that in the
subject-Law, under the ST-Category, no cut off percentage
is prescribed. It is pointed out that in the subject-Law,
under GM-Category, the cut off mark is prescribed as
57.33% and for SC-Category, the cut off mark is
prescribed as 48.67%. Learned counsel submits that the
petitioner scored more than 35% in the two papers
combined. In fact, the petitioner secured 35 out of 100
-8-
WP No.20935 of 2021
marks in Paper-I and 84 out of 200 in Paper-II, and
therefore, the percentage secured by the petitioner is
39.33%. Learned counsel submits that all efforts made by
the petitioner to secure information from respondent No.1
as to the number of candidates who applied for the test in
Law subject and number of candidates who are declared
eligible, has gone in vain, no information is made available
to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that having
regard to the provisions of the Act of 1990, in every
subject, reservation of 3% is required to be given to ST
Category, but respondent No.1 has failed to provide for
reservation in each subject, and therefore, the petitioner is
aggrieved.
5. Learned counsel Sri.T.P.Rajendra Kumar
Sungay appearing for respondent No.1-KSET submitted
that the final results have been declared in terms of the
impugned notification at Annexure-D and the formula
prescribed in the notification, under the heading
"Procedure and Criteria for Declaration of KSET Results".
All the three steps shown in the procedure have been
-9-
WP No.20935 of 2021
followed. In the first step, the total number of slots which
shall be equal to 6% of the candidates who appeared in
both the papers is arrived at. In the second step, a merit
list is prepared having regard to the total slots arrived
step-wise and category-wise, using aggregate marks of all
the two papers secured by the candidates. In terms of the
directives issued by the UGC, third step is followed as per
the formula given by the UGC notification. It is submitted
that no fault can be found in the action of respondent
No.1-KSET.
6. Learned counsel Sri.H.R.Showri appearing for
respondent No.2-UGC submitted that the formula
prescribed by the UGC cannot be faulted. Attention of this
court is drawn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
UGC, having regard to the additional prayer made by the
petitioner seeking the formula prescribed by the UGC as
unconstitutional. It is submitted that the UGC which is
constituted under the provisions of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 is entrusted with the duty to take
such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and
- 10 -
WP No.20935 of 2021
coordination of university education and for the
determination and maintenance of standards of teaching,
examination and research in universities. For this purpose,
UGC has been vested with the power to recommend to any
university, the measures necessary for the improvement
of university education and advise the universities upon
the action to be taken for the purpose of implementation
of such recommendations. It is pointed out that in the
Education Policy, 1986, the Union Government has
envisaged that only those candidates who, besides
fulfilling the minimum academic qualifications prescribed
for the post of lecturer, have qualified in a comprehensive
test to be specifically conducted for the purpose, will be
eligible for appointment as lecturers. The UGC held wide
ranging discussions regarding this issue of conducting
qualifying test for appointment as lecturers and Assistant
Professors amongst experts, including group of academics
and State Education Secretaries etc. The UGC conducted
the first test for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and
eligibility for lectureship on 24.12.1989, in the subjects
- 11 -
WP No.20935 of 2021
falling under Humanities including languages, social
sciences and a few science subjects, and the Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) conducted the
joint CSIR-UGC Test for JRF and eligibility for lectureship
on 31.12.1989 for disciplines falling under the basic
sciences. Since then, UGC-NET and the joint CSIR-UGC
Test have been conducted on a regular basis, generally
twice every year.
7. It is submitted that State Governments and
Union Territories were conferred with authority to conduct
their own test on fulfilling certain yardsticks. It was
decided that the State Governments and Union Territories
decided to conduct a test equivalent to UGC-NET and joint
CSIR-UGC Tests, these tests shall require accreditation
from UGC. In response to the said proposal, some of the
States opted to conduct their own tests, namely, State
Eligibility Test (SET) for lectureship only. The candidates
who have cleared the State Eligibility Test accredited by
UGC for eligibility for Assistant Professorship held prior to
01.06.2002, are exempted from appearing in NET. For
- 12 -
WP No.20935 of 2021
SET's held after 01.06.2002, the qualified candidates are
eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor only in
the universities/colleges situated in the State from where
they have cleared their SET.
8. It is stated in paragraph 10 of the counter
affidavit of the UGC that though 35% is the minimum
requirement for being considered for preparation of the
results of the SET, nevertheless, candidates who have
obtained marks above the cut off qualifying marks shall
only be issued the eligibility certificate. Learned counsel
for respondent No.2-UGC submitted that respondent No.1
has clearly followed the methodology prescribed by the
UGC for preparing the results of SET, and therefore, there
is no merit in the writ petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel Sri.Shridhar
Prabhu for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri.T.P.Rajendra
Kumar Sungay for respondent No.1, learned counsel
Sri.H.R.Showri for respondent No.2, learned AGA
Smt.B.P.Radha for respondent No.3, and on perusing the
- 13 -
WP No.20935 of 2021
petition papers, this court finds that the crux of the issue
is,
"Whether the methodology and the formula
prescribed in the impugned notification meets
the requirement of the constitutional mandate in
giving adequate representation to the persons
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and OBC category?"
10. It is the contention of the petitioner that if the
formula prescribed by the UGC is followed, as done in the
present case, no person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes
category will receive certificate of clearing SET. It is the
contention of the petitioner that in the final analysis, the
percentage of reservation prescribed in the Act of 1990
may be met, but in many subjects, candidates though
having minimum qualification, will be deprived of the
eligibility certificate, as found in the case subject "Law". It
can be seen from Annexure-A, the impugned notification,
in many subjects, such as, Visual Arts, Music, Performance
- 14 -
WP No.20935 of 2021
Arts, Linguistics, Philosophy, Anthropology, Archaeology,
Home Science, Environmental Science, Public
Administration, Urdu, Folk Literature, Sanskrit, Law,
Criminology etc., the candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Tribes category have not received eligibility
certificate.
11. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in
the case of DR.VISHWAJEET SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF
U.P. AND OTHERS reported in 2009 SCC ONLINE ALL 420,
while considering the grievance of the writ petitioners that
entire cadre cannot be taken as a unit for computing the
reservation, also considered the issue "what is a unit for
applying Rules of Reservation according the Act of 1994
and the roster framed thereunder". The provisions of the
U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994,
which is similar to the Act of 1990 of Karnataka fell for
consideration. Noticing the similar provisions as contained
in the Act of 1994 therein, the Division Bench held as
under:
- 15 -
WP No.20935 of 2021
"Thus, the reservation contemplated in admission of
the students relates to various courses of study. Each
course of study has to be treated separate unit for
applying the percentage of reservation. There is no
indication of clubbing various course of studies for
applying the reservation in admission. Although the
manner of applying reservation in admission of the
students has no direct bearing with regard to method of
applying reservation and roster on various posts of
lecturers in a college but at least said statutory provision
gives an indication that different course of studies have
been accepted as a unit for applicability of reservation in
admission."
12. It was noticed that earlier, another Division
Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of DR.DURGA
PRASAD YADAV VS STATE OF U.P. in W.P.NO.53197/2006
had held that, the lecturer in different subjects required to
possess different qualifications as provided by the Statute
of the University and the posts are not interchangeable.
Different subjects in a college are in different disciplines
and post in a college is created subject-wise. Thus, it was
held that neither all the posts of one subject in different
colleges can be clubbed together for applying the rules of
reservation nor all the post of lecturers in one college can
- 16 -
WP No.20935 of 2021
be grouped together for applying the reservation. It was
therefore, held that reservation according to 1994 Act and
roster thereunder, is to be applied college-wise and
subject-wise.
13. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in
DR.VISHWAJEET SINGH (SUPRA) was affirmed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SANJEEV KUMAR AND
OTHERS VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported
in (2019) 12 SCC 385. In the meanwhile, a reference
was made by another Division Bench which was unable to
agree with the view taken in Dr.Vishwajeet Singh to a
Larger Bench of more than Three Judges. Having regard to
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
SANJEEV KUMAR (SUPRA) affirming the decision in
Dr.Vishwajeet Singh, the Five Judges Bench found itself to
be bound by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
SANJEEV KUMAR (SUPRA) and accordingly, held that there
was no occasion to rule on the reference. The said decision
of the Five Judges Bench again came up for consideration
before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BABLOO
- 17 -
WP No.20935 of 2021
SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS reported in (2019) 12 SCC 403, and the Hon'ble
Apex Court upheld the decision of the Five Judges Bench,
in view of the affirmation of the judgment of Dr.Vishwajeet
Singh.
14. Further, on facts, it has to be noticed that in the
subject-Law, totally 26 slots were available when the
impugned notification was issued. In the final analysis, in
terms of the final results declared by respondent No.1, 18
slots out of 26 are accorded to General category, 3 to
Scheduled Castes category, 2 to II-A category, and 1 each
to II-B, III-A and III-B categories. While applying the
formula recommended by the UGC, in the final results, the
candidates under Scheduled Tribes category have not
received representation in many subjects such as, Visual
Arts, Music, Performance Arts, Linguistics, Philosophy,
Anthropology, Archaeology, Home Science, Environmental
Science, Public Administration, Urdu, Folk Literature,
Sanskrit, Law, Criminology etc.
- 18 -
WP No.20935 of 2021
15. The argument of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that
overall results complies the requirement of reservation.
This argument cannot be accepted. The reservation of
roster as per the Act of 1990 has to be applied
subject-wise. It is nobody's case that there are single slots
available in the subject-Law or many such other subjects,
thereby preventing reservation. On the other hand, as
noticed earlier, there were sufficient slots available in
every subject, and therefore, the rule of reservation along
with roster should have been applied. Although it is true
that this is not the case of appointment to any posts,
nevertheless, it is the process of certifying a candidate as
eligible to apply to the posts of Lecturer/Assistant
Professorship. Therefore, constitutional mandate adopted
in the Act of 1990 providing reservation is necessarily to
be applied in the present context also. The formula
prescribed by the UGC does not take care of the statutory
requirements of reservation enabled by the State of
Karnataka.
- 19 -
WP No.20935 of 2021
16. In the considered opinion of this court, the first
two steps prescribed in the 'Procedure and Criteria for
Declaration of KSET Results', in the impugned notification
do follow the requirement of identification of slots and for
providing for reservation. However, the third step gives a
go by to the requirement of law in the matter of
reservation, as prescribed in the Act of 1990. The third
step should therefore be replaced by following the roster
point prescribed by the State of Karnataka in its
subsequent notifications. Following the roster, would be a
simple solution for providing reservation, in the matter of
certifying candidates, subject-wise.
17. However, it is to be noticed that the final results
in terms of the notification at Annexure-A was issued on
02.11.2021 and only one candidate is before this court in
this writ petition. No useful purpose would be served in
setting aside the impugned notification at Annexure-A. At
the same time, if the relief is given to the petitioner, it
would not cause any prejudice to the respondents or any
- 20 -
WP No.20935 of 2021
of the candidates. Consequently, this court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
ii) Respondent No.1-KSET is hereby directed to declare the petitioner as successful and issue a certificate of SET to the petitioner.
iii) The certificate shall be issued to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to revisit the "Procedure and Criteria for Declaration of KSET Results" and ensure that the rule of reservation as mandated in the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
- 21 -
WP No.20935 of 2021(Reservation and Appointment etc.) Act, 1990 is followed while declaring the results and certifying the candidates as eligible, subject-wise and category-wise. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE MBS CT:VH