Karnataka High Court
Kum.Svara Prema Anand vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB
WP No. 20702 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.20702 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. KUM. SVARA PREMA ANAND
D/O SURG CAPT P ANAND (RETD),
NEET UG-2025 ROLL NO. 2723104097,
AGED 18 YEARS,
ADDRESS # OPP.
DHARMARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE
RAJ BHAVI CROSS, VARTHUR,
BENGALURU 560 087.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
SRI GURUKRUPA, 1ST FLOOR,
TG EXTENSION, 4TH CROSS 1ST MAIN,
HOSKOTE, BANGALORE - 562 114.
Digitally signed
by 2. SRI. ANAND P.
VIJAYALAKSHMI
BN S/O PICHANNA,
Location: HIGH AGED 56 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ADDRESS # OPP. DHARMARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
RAJ BHAVI CROSS, VARTHUR,
BENGALURU - 560 087.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
SRI GURUKRUPA, 1ST FLOOR,
TG EXTENSION, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, HOSKOTE,
BANGALORE - 562 114.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB
WP No. 20702 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. THE DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT
OF KARNATAKA, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU 560 000
EMAIL - [email protected]
3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM WEST, BENGALURU 560 012.
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
EMAIL - [email protected]
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. N.K.RAMESH FOR R3;)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRITS/ORDERS, DECLARING THAT THE
REQUIREMENT IN CLAUSE 13 FOUND AT PAG ENO.48 OF THE E-
INFORMATION BULLETIN 2025 ISSUED BY KARNATAKA EXAMINATION
AUTHORITY (RESPONDENT NO.3) VIDE ANNEXURE-J i.e., PROVIDED
THAT THE CANDIDATE SHOULD HAVE STUDIED IN KARNATAKA FOR A
PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FROM 1ST STANDARD TO QUALIFYING EXAM, AS
A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR AVAILING THE LINGUISTIC MINORITY
RESERVATION IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
STRIKE DOWN THE SAME, AND FURTHER ORDER THE SAME TO BE
INAPPLICABLE TO PETITIONER NO.1 AS HER FATHER/PETITIONER NO.2
WAS SERVING IN THE INDIAN NAVY AND POSTED OUTSIDE STATE OF
KARNATAKA DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD OF THE STUDY OF
PETITIONER NO.1 FROM 1ST STANDARD TO 10TH STANDARD AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB
WP No. 20702 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Heard Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned senior counsel along
with Sri.Ganapathi Bhat, appearing for the petitioner,
Sri.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and
Sri.N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3.
2. The substantial prayers in this writ petition are
as under:-
"a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writs/orders, declaring that the
requirement in Clause 13 found at page
no.48 of the E-Information Bulletin 2025
issued by Karnataka Examinations Authority
(Respondent No.3) vide Annexure-J i.e
"provided that the candidate should have
NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB
HC-KAR
studied in Karnataka for a period of Ten Years
from 1st Standard to qualifying exam", as a
condition precedent for availing the Linguistic
Minority reservation is arbitrary, illegal and
unconstitutional and strike down the same;
and further order the same to be inapplicable
to Petitioner No.1 as her father/Petitioner
No.2 was serving in the Indian Navy and
posted outside State of Karnataka during the
relevant period of the study of Petitioner no.1
from 1st Standard to 10th Standard;
b) Issue appropriate Writs/orders, declaring that
the condition No.2 in the Government Order
No.ED 165 Mahiti 2018 dated 12/09/2018
issued by Respondent No.1 vide Annexure
'J1' is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional
and strike down the same; and further order
the same to be inapplicable to the Petitioner
No.1 as her father/Petitioner No.2 was
serving in the Indian Navy and posted outside
State of Karnataka during the relevant period
of the study of Petitioner no.1 from 1st
Standard to 10th Standard."
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the first petitioner is the daughter
NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB
HC-KAR
of an ex-serviceman (second petitioner) who is domiciled
in Karnataka, who had been posted outside the State for
several years during her education. The candidate
therefore, had to accompany her family and was educated
in several places through out the country, but outside
Karnataka. However, she completed her 11th and 12th
standard in Karnataka.
4. It is submitted that she belongs to the Tamil
linguistic minority and is domiciled in Karnataka.
However, on account of the provisions contained in the
prospectus, which reads as under:-
"Linquistic Minority: (for Medical and Dental only)
• Linguistic Minority reservation is applicable for Tamil,
Telugu, Kodava & Tulu of Karnataka Candidates and
domicile candidates only; provided,
• He/she should have studied in Karnataka for a period
of Ten years from 1st Standard to qualifying exam
and passed SSLC/10th or 2nd PUC/12th from
Karnataka state."
the petitioner is unable to apply in the State minority
quota for private educational institutions. It is submitted
NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB
HC-KAR
that the petitioner has completed her 12th examination
from Karnataka. However, she has not studied for 10
years from 1st standard to the qualifying examination in
Karnataka.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in Meenakshi Malik v. University of Delhi and
others reported in (1989)3 SCC 112 and Vansh S/o.
Prakash Dolas v. Ministry of Education and the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 342, and submits that
such prescriptions with regard to specific years of study in
the State insofar as ex-servicemen and Government
employees are concerned have been held to be arbitrary
and discriminatory by the Apex Court. It is further
submitted that the writ petitioners had been making
representations and requests before the competent
authorities as evidenced by Annexures-'L', 'L1' and 'L2' on
NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB
HC-KAR
noticing the discrepancy, but no action has been taken
thereon.
6. The learned senior counsel also drew our
attention to a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in Writ Petition No.12121/2022 decided on
22.08.2022 to contend that the State had been directed
to consider the relaxation of minimum education criteria in
respect of the wards of Government employees.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the KEA have
filed detailed objection on record stating as follows:
"1. x x x x x
2. It is true that the 1st Petitioner had registered
her name in Karnataka Examinations Authority for the
academic year NEET UG-2025-26 with All India NEET
Rank 735064 and has claimed a seat under General
category and also under Spl. Category of Ex. Defense
as is evident in Annexure-K-1. On verification of
documents she was found not eligible to select a seat
under the Tamil Linguistic Minority quota as evident
from Annexure-K2 as she does not fulfill the criteria for
completion of study of 10 years in State of Karnataka.
The eligibility criteria prescribed to claim a seat by a
NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB
HC-KAR
Linguistic Minority student seeking admission to a
specified Linguistic Minority Institution as per the Govt.
Orders dated 12/09/2018 vide Annexures J-1. This
Respondent being a Counselling Agency has prescribed
the said criteria in the Brochure which is being followed
since then. The Petitioner cannot be exempted from
adhering to the same.
3. The Petitioner is endeavouring to take sustenance
from the Judgments rendered by the Apex Court
produced at Annexures N & P. The ratio of the
judgments are inapplicable to the case of the
Petitioner. In the said judgments, the student therein
was denied a seat for admission in the State Quota
seats. In the instant case, the Petitioner if satisfies any
of the eligibility clauses 'e, f, g and h' meant for the
wards of Defense and Ex-Defense personnel, she is
entitled to be considered for selection of a Govt. seat in
the said category. The seats in a Minority Institution
being Categorized as 'P' seats and it is primarily meant
for and filled up by the students belonging to specific
Linguistic Minorities in the State for which the State
Govt. has prescribed the norms. This prescription is
based on the dictum rendered by the Apex Court in the
case of PA Inamdar Vs State of Maharashtra - (2005) 6
SCC 537. If such prescriptions are not regulated and
adhered to, there is all the chance of depriving the
State Linguistic Minority Students from getting
admission to a Linguistic Minority Institution to which
the student belongs."
NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB
HC-KAR
8. The learned AGA has also raised arguments
before us and has also placed reliance on the Judgment of
a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mylepalle Vaibhavi
vs. Karnataka Examinations Authority, rep. by its
Executive Director and Others reported in ILR 2018
KAR 3707.
9. In support of his contentions, he contends that
the identical provision has already been upheld by this
Court. It is contended that the first petitioner was a
candidate for NEET Examinations in the previous year also
and was fully aware of the prescriptions in the prospectus.
Though the prospectus is dated 22.01.2025, no challenge
has been raised before this Court till the last possible
moment when the last date for submission of application is
on 17.07.2025.
10. The learned AGA also places reliance on the
decision of the Apex Court in Binoy Viswam vs. Union of
India and others reported in (2017) 7 SCC 59 in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB
HC-KAR
support of his contention that a prescription in the
prospectus which would be equally applicable to all
similarly situated candidates cannot be waived or relaxed
in respect of the first petitioner alone.
11. Having considered the contentions advanced,
we notice that the Apex Court in the Judgments relied on
by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was
considering the question whether children of serving
officers of the of the Government could be required to
complete their qualifying examination within the State to
entitle them for consideration as State candidates.
However, a co-equal Bench of this Court has considered a
challenge to the criteria of ten years of study in Karnataka
for availing the benefit of linguistic minority in Karnataka
and has come to the conclusion that the said prescription
is valid. Further, we also notice that the prospectus under
challenge was one issued in January 2025 and the writ
petitioner was a person who had participated in the
selection in the previous year as well. In case the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB
HC-KAR
condition is relaxed as sought for by the petitioner, there
would be several other persons who would be entitled to
the benefit who are unaware of this challenge and would
not have made an application in the linguistic minority
quota because of the prescription in the prospectus.
12. Though the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner contends that the rule of parity will not extend
to persons who have not approached the Court, we are of
the opinion that in the matter of centralized selection to
medical seats, where merit alone is expected to be the
criteria, the decisions relied on by the learned senior
counsel which are in the realm of Service Law would not
apply. Any relaxation would have to be equally made
applicable to all eligible candidates and permitting one
candidate alone to avail of the benefit by relaxing the
condition would amount to giving the rule of merit a go-
by.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26685-DB
HC-KAR
13. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the prayer sought in the petition cannot be
granted.
14. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
BNV
