Karnataka High Court
Sri. Syed Burhan Ahamed vs M/S Karnataka Power Corporation ... on 10 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40160-DB
RP No. 286 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
REVIEW PETITION No. 286 OF 2025
IN
WRIT APPEAL No.1298/2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SYED BURHAN AHAMED,
S/O. SYED NISAR AHAMED,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PLOT No.1 AND 2,
WARD No. 16, 1ST CROSS,
NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE,
VISHAL NAGAR, BALLARI 583 101.
Digitally signed 2. SRI GAVIYAPPA G. H.,
by VALLI S/O. G. HUCHAPPA,
MARIMUTHU
Location: HIGH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
COURT OF RESIDING AT WARD No.1,
KARNATAKA BESIDE MASJID, VITTALPUR,
BALLARI 583 115.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRITHVEESH M. K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION
LIMITED.,
A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40160-DB
RP No. 286 of 2025
HC-KAR
No.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
RACE COURSE ROAD ,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION
LIMITED,
No.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001.
3. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE 560012,
REP.BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
4. MR. GIRISH. J.,
S/O SRI JAYARAMLINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/A No.60, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
KTG COLLEGE ROAD, SRIGANGADHAR,
HEGGANAHALLI CROSS,
BANGALORE-560091.
5. MR. SUGURAYYA SWAMI,
S/O SRI NEPAL SWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/A No. 11-390-15/A,
SHANTHVEER NAGAR,
GULBARGA 585103.
6. MR. SHASHIDARA J.M.,
S/O SRI. KEDARASWAMY J.M.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/A No. 0-114B, KHB ROAD,
NEAR ANGANAVADI,
RAMANAGARA BELLARY-583212.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40160-DB
RP No. 286 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. NAVEEN KUMAR S,
S/O SRI. SUBBAPPA S.R.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/A M.L. HALLI,
MADASURLINGADAHALLI,
SHIMOGA 577434.
8. MR. GOVIND RATHOD,
S/O SRI. MUDAKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
GADDI THANDA,
DEVADURGA, RAICHUR - 584111.
9. MR. SHARANABASU SONNA,
S/O SRI SHIVAPPA SONNA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/A 436, MASALI BK PO, TAMBA,
VIJAYAPURA- 586215.
10. MR. SUNIL HOSALLI,
S/O SRI BASAPPA HOSALLI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/A No.131,TEACHERS COLONY,
BANDIHALLI ROAD,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
BELLARI 583212.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.05.2025 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL No.1298/2024 (ANN. - A).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:40160-DB
RP No. 286 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
The petitioners have filed the present review petition
seeking review of the judgment dated 28.05.2025 passed by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of appeals including
Writ Appeal No.1298 of 2024(S-RES).
2. The review petitioners had preferred the said appeal
impugning the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.16517 of 2024.
Some of the appellants had preferred Special Leave Petition
against the order dated 28.05.2025 and the SLP has since been
dismissed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners
submits that the Court had erred in not considering the
question whether fresh examination was required to be
conducted with the stipulation of negative marking. He submits
that, since the recruitment rules do not provide for negative
marking, fresh examination containing negative marking ought
NC: 2025:KHC:40160-DB
HC-KAR
not to have been directed. However, the learned counsel does
not dispute that the review petitioners had participated in the
initial examination, which expressly stipulated negative
marking, without raising any challenge to the same. The said
initial examination was cancelled and fresh examination was
conducted which did not contain any stipulation for negative
marking. Notwithstanding the same, the examination authority
had sought to evaluate the answer sheets of the candidates on
the basis of the negative marking.
4. The question whether the concept of negative marking
could have been introduced at the stage of evaluation, was a
principal ground of challenge in several writ petitions, which
came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on
10.07.2024. The review petitioners challenged the said order
on the ground that the rules of the examination cannot be
changed after the examination is commenced. The said
contention was accepted by this Court.
5. Concededly, no submissions were advanced in support of
the contention that negative marking per se was not
permissible. Essentially the review petitioners seek to advance
NC: 2025:KHC:40160-DB
HC-KAR
the submissions, which were not advanced before this Court in
the writ appeal and at a stage after the Supreme Court has
declined to interfere with the said order.
6. In the circumstances, we find no ground to review the
judgment dated 28.05.2025. The review petition is accordingly
dismissed.
In view of dismissal of main petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as not
surviving.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
