[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Dr Sagar K S vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2026
-1-
WP No. 2386 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 2386 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. DR. SAGAR K S.,
S/O SHANKARI GOWDA K.N.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS A GDMO PHC AKKIHEBBALU,
KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA - 571 426,
R/O KATTERI VILLAGE,
PANDAVAPURA TALUQ,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.
2. DR. SHALINI GOVIND,
W/o PUNITH N G.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS GDMO AT HULIKUNTE PHC,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
R/O 633/62, 5TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS,
MC LAYOUT, VIJAYNAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.N.KHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH., ADVOCATE)
-2-
WP No. 2386 of 2026
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE,
(MEDICAL EDUCATION)
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES,
AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BMCRI, 1ST FLOOR, FORT, K.R. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
4. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
18TH CROSS ROAD, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 017,
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB., AAG A/W.
SMT. PRATHIBA R.K., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A)
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO RECEIVE THE FORM-H
DATED 08.01.2026 (ANNEXURE-J1) OF THE PETITIONER NO.1
AND THE FORM-H DATED 20.01.2026 (ANNEXURE-J2) OF THE
PETITIONER NO.2, IN RESPECT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
APPLICATIONS BOTH DATED 26.09.2025 (ANNEXURE-E1 AND
E2) AND (B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO OFFER THE FIVE
DECATEGORISED INSERVICE SEATS WHICH HAVE REMAINED
UNFILLED AFTER THE SECOND ROUND, NAMELY (i) GEN
MEDICINE IN KVG SULLIA, (ii) ANAESTHESIA IN KIMS,
BANGALORE, (iii) ANAESTHESIA IN BRIMS, BIDAR, AND (iv)
ANAESTHESIA IN GRIMS, GADAG AND (v) DERMATOLOGY IN
KIMS, KODAGU, TO THE INSERVICE PETITIONERS WHO CAN
CHOOSE FROM THE SAID SEATS, ON A FIRST
PRIORITY/PREFERENCE BASIS, BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT
OF THE 3RD ROUND (MOP UP) AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.02.2026, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
CAV ORDER
(PER CURIAM)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State
Authorities and learned counsel for the Karnataka
Examination Authority.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking following
reliefs:
1) Direct the Respondent No.4 to receive the Form-
H dated 08-01-2026 (Ann-J1) of the Petitioner
No.1 and the Form-H dated 20-01-2026 (Ann-J2)
of the Petitioner No.2, in respect of their
respective Applications both dated 26-09-2025
(Annexure-E1 and E2), and
2) Direct the Respondents to offer the five
decategorised Inservice seats which have
remained unfilled after the second round,
namely, (i) GEN MEDICINE in KVG Sullia, (ii)
ANAESTHESIA in KIMS, Bangalore, (iii)
ANAESTHESIA in BRIMS, Bidar, and (iv)
ANAESTHESIA in GRIMS, Gadag, and (v)
DERMATOLOGY in KIMS, Kodagu, to the Inservice
Petitioners who can choose from the said seats,
on a first priority/preference basis, before the
commencement of the 3rd Round (Mop Up):
3) Such other writs or orders as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case, and in the interest of justice.
3. Petitioner No.1 is working as General Duty Medical
Officer (GDMO for short) at Akki Hebballu, K.R.Pet, Mandya
in the first respondent Department and was appointed on
01.06.2021, and completed his probationary period
successfully on 31.05.2023 and he has completed his
mandatory three years of regular service on 31.05.2024.
4. Petitioner No.2 is working as GDMO at PHC
Hulikunte, Bengaluru Rural District in the first respondent
Department and was appointed on 01.06.2021, and
completed her probationary period successfully on
31.05.2023 and she has completed her mandatory three
years of regular service on 31.05.2024.
5. Both the petitioners filed their respective
applications on 26.09.2025 for PG Course.
6. It is stated that both the petitioners are eligible to
secure seats for pursuing the Post Graduate course under
the in-service quota. A circular was issued by the
Government of Karnataka dated 08.05.2025 on the subject
of exemption from the 'Creamy Layer' limit and the issuance
of caste certificates for candidates belonging to Backward
Classes categories 2-A, 2-B, 3-A and 3-B who are currently
in service. In this circular it is specified that the Tahsildars
must issue Caste or Caste-cum-Income Certificates in Forms
D, E and F for education, employment, and other purposes
within 2 months from the date of receipt of application. For
direct recruitment under Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the
Constitution, the creamy layer rule shall not apply to
candidates belonging to categories 2-A, 2-B, 3-A and 3-B in
cases where specific periods of experience are prescribed for
certain lower-level posts. According to the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 and
Rules, 1992 (including 2000 amendments), candidates are
eligible to obtain a Caste Certificate or a Caste-cum-Income
Certificate. Therefore, to provide creamy layer exemptions to
in-service candidates belonging to categories 2-A, 2-B, 3-A,
3-B, the concerned Tahsildars were directed to verify the
relevant documents and take action to issue the Caste
Confirmation Certificate for Backward Class candidates in
Form-H.
7. It is stated that none of the notifications
stipulated that on production of Form-H the candidates would
be entitled to reservation under the OBC category in the in-
service category and therefore there was no information to
the in-service candidates that they would be required to
produce Form-H. Instead it was only Form-F that was
mentioned in the notification issued by the KEA and thereby
the petitioners were in fact 'disentitled' to the benefits
available to OBCs. In-service category doctors were not
given the benefit of OBC reservations the in-service
category. The petitioners believed that in-service candidates
like themselves would not be entitled to the benefit of
eligibility criteria of 40th percentile cut-off scores applicable,
inter alia, to OBC category in terms of the notice dated
19.08.2025 issued by the National Board of Examinations in
Medical Sciences, New Delhi. It is stated in the petition that
since then, the petitioners had been awaiting reduction in the
cut-off marks as General Category candidates. It is stated
that the petitioner is had come to know of a judgment dated
11.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.36085/2025 by this Court
whereby reservation of seats for OBC candidates in the in-
service quota has been permitted and creamy layer is held to
be not applicable to the in-service candidates, based on the
submissions of the State Government. The petitioners state
that they have lost out on the opportunity to avail the benefit
of the lower cut-off marks for OBC candidates fixed in the 1st
round itself, as well as the opportunity on the benefit of
reservation of seats. This loss was entirely due to the State
Government not notifying the candidates as to the
availability of reservation for the OBC categories, and also
not notifying the process of availing it by procuring the
Form-H.
8. As regards Form-H, the Tahsildar had stated by
an endorsement that it was not possible to issue such a
certificate. Thereafter a writ petition was filed and pursuant
to orders passed by this Court, the said Form-H were
furnished.
9. It is stated that after the de-categorisation of the
in-service quota seats in the 2nd round, a total of 371
postgraduate in-service seats remained which were merged
with the non-in-service seats in the ongoing counselling for
the 2nd round. However since no notification was issued in
respect of the said seats in the seat matrix for the 2nd round
for the non-in-service candidates, several seats remain
vacant.
10. It is stated that a writ petition bearing W.P. No.
110014/2025 was filed by one in-service candidate in the
Dharwad bench of this Court seeking, inter alia, a direction
to the Respondents to receive the application for
participating in the in-service quota category of PG-NEET
2025 and thereafter to forward the name of the petitioner to
the Directorate of Medical Education1 and the Karnataka
Examination Authority2 to enable the petitioner to participate
in the counseling in the in-service quota category of PG-NEET
2025. It was noted in that case that 62 seats out of 433
seats were filled by in-service candidates and the remaining
371 seats were merged with non-in-service seats and were
offered to non-in-service candidates. The learned AGA
appearing for the State-respondents had stated that the
State has no objection for treating the petitioner therein as
an in-service candidate. However, in the light of the first two
rounds of counselling already having been completed and the
successful candidate in the said counselling not been made a
party, disrupting any of the seats allotted or redoing the
counselling process for the petitioner would not be feasible.
It was then submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that
he would have no objection if any one of the 371 seats which
were unfilled by the in-service candidates, is allotted to the
petitioner.
DME
KEA
- 10 -
11. The KEA in its objection filed in the said writ
petition at the Dharwad Bench had stated that once the
seats reserved for in-service candidates are de-categorised
and converted to non-in-service seats by the State
government, the converted seats get merged with the non-
in-service seats and it cannot be ascertained as to which of
the de-categorised seats have remained vacant. Therefore it
was urged that the petitioner be permitted to choose any
one of the seats in the mop up round among the vacant
seats. It was ordered by the Court that the petitioner therein
shall be treated as an in-service candidate and would be
offered first preference in the order of merit along with
similarly situated candidates, if any, to choose from the
available 1501 seats for regular Post Graduate courses and
110 seats reserved for Diplomate of National Board3 courses
which are offered only to Health and Family Welfare4 in-
service candidates. Moreover, after allotting seat to the
petitioner, the remaining seats would be offered to the other
regular PG course candidates in mop up round.
DNB
HFW
- 11 -
12. It is stated that the petitioners herein participated
in the counselling and also obtained seats in the General
category and so no other candidates are there other than the
petitioner's who have been deprived or prejudiced because of
this fault of the State government. The petitioners had no
information about availing Form-H nor were they provided
Form-H by the Tahsildar until after directions were issued by
the court. It has been stated that the petitioners, without
prejudice to their entitlement on parity basis, will be content
with the selection being restricted to the five seats (in
General Medicine, Anaesthesia and Dermatology) which
constitute some of the identified de-categorised in-service
seats.
13. This Court on 03.02.2026, at the request of
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.4, adjourned the matter to 04.02.2006 to
enable them to obtain instructions. On 04.02.2026, the
Learned Additional Advocate General for respondent Nos.1, 2
and 3 made his submissions on the basis of instructions. This
Court directed the respondents to file counter-affidavits to
- 12 -
the aforesaid Writ Petition and adjourned the matter to
09.02.2026. However in view of the petitioners' submission
on interim relief, the learned Additional Advocate General
and the learned counsel for KEA on the basis of instructions,
stated that the allotment of seats will not be done till 08:00
p.m. on 09.02.2026, with the option entries to continue from
05.02.2026 till 09.02.2026. On 09.02.2026, this Court
passed the following order:
"ORDER
In view of the submission made by the learned
Additional Advocate General regarding the matter
engaging attention of the Government with regard to
allotment of seats for In-Service Candidates regarding
Post Graduation Courses, we deem it fit to direct that
the Karnataka Examinations Authority shall not start
allotment process till after the next date of listing of
this case nor shall it notify the list.
List this case on 11.02.2026 at the top of the
list"
14. On behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 a
statement of objection has been filed. It is submitted therein
that both the petitioners belong to the HFW Department and
their request to be considered for PG-NEET in-service quota
- 13 -
seats had to be forwarded through the concerned District
Health Officers to the Commissioner, HFW. The said
applications were verified and only the applications of eligible
Applicants who had secured the qualifying percentile were
forwarded to the DME, which in turn forwards the
applications to the KEA. The PG-NEET score card submitted
by both the petitioners were verified and since their category
was mentioned as "General", in the PG-NEET score card, and
they had not claimed OBC category at that stage, since they
had secured less than the qualifying percentile in respect of
General Category, both the petitioners were ineligible to
participate in the counselling and hence their applications
were not forwarded to the DME for counselling. Therefore
both the petitioner had not participated in the 1st and 2nd
round of counselling under the in-service quota of PG-NEET
2025. It is further stated that the petitioners have now
submitted Form-H certificates to claim OBC category benefits
and the Respondent No. 2 has forwarded the applications to
the Respondent No. 3 along with Form-H which will be
forwarded to the KEA for enabling the petitioners to
participate in the mop up around of counselling. Therefore, it
- 14 -
is stated, that the prayer No. 1 made in the writ petition
does not survive.
15. It is further stated in the statement of objection
that the KEA vide its letter dated 21.01.2026 had sent a
proposal for the opinion of the Department of Medical
Education regarding the de-categorised in-service seats
which the KEA was able to identify as being vacant and
available for mop up round of counselling. Further, four de-
categorised and allotted seats out of the total 371 de-
categorised in-service seats were identified as being vacant
now on account of cancellations with seats were available for
mop around of counselling and suitable directions was
sought for offering the said four MD/MS seats along with the
remaining DNB seats to eligible in-service candidates.
Concurrence to the said proposal has been given by the
Department of Medical Education by its letter of 09.02.2026.
It is therefore stated that as far as prayer No. 2 is
concerned, a 1st priority/preference cannot be given only to
the petitioners before the commencement of the mop up
round, but the petitioners can participate in the mop up
round and choose the seats in the in-service pool based on
- 15 -
merit and ranking. In other words, there cannot be a
separate preference to the petitioners but the preference will
be based on the ranking amongst similarly situated
candidates (in-service candidates) and if any candidate
having a better rank than the petitioners is allotted any of
the seats, the remaining seats will be available for allotment
to the petitioners based on ranking.
16. The KEA has also filed its statement of objection
in which it is stated that the petitioners had scored less than
the cut-off score for the general category during the 1st
round of counselling. Therefore they did not qualify for the
1st round as their names were not included in the list of
eligible doctors qualified for PG studies sent by the 2nd
Respondent. For the 1st round of counselling, in the seat
matrix, the State government has reserved a total of 441 PG
degree and diploma including DNB seats for in-service
candidates but there were only 76 eligible in-service
candidates. Out of them 71 were allotted the seats of their
choice as per their inter se merit by following the roster.
Since there were no other qualified in-service candidates as
per the rules, the remaining 371 PG seats were de-
- 16 -
categorised and offered to non-in-service candidates in the
2nd round of counselling. After the 2nd round of counselling
had concluded, the Medical Counselling Committee by its
notification dated 13.01.2026 reduced the qualifying
percentile to 40 percentile with cut-off score at 235. On
account of reduction on the percentile, the petitioners
became eligible for allotment of seats in the available de-
categorised seats in the mop up round of counselling. After
that de-categorisation of the seats, there cannot be any
reservation of seats for in-service candidates in the mop up
round. The petitioners have to compete with the non-in-
service candidates on the basis of inter-se merit for selection
of seats. It is stated that the petitioners are trying to make
out notional re-categorisation of the in-service quota to stake
their claim to a particular subject which would be detrimental
to the interest of other eligible students who have more
merit than the petitioners. The Form-H produced by the
petitioners also cannot be considered as it would alter the
status of the other candidates who have claimed under 3-A
category. It is stated that the Respondent has instructed its
counsel to file a review petition seeking review of the order
- 17 -
dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Dharwad bench of this court
in W.P. No. 110014/2025.
17. What is important to note is that the petitioners
are eligible candidates who stand deprived of the benefit of
Form-H due to the delay in its issuance by the Tahsildar,
which delay is not attributable to the petitioners. The
respondents have not denied this fact. It is also not denied
that had the said Form-H been timely issued, the petitioners
would have been eligible to participate in the first round of
counseling conducted by the KEA. Where reservation of seats
is provided for in-service candidates, by the State
Government, it must be implemented. The seats reserved for
the in-service candidates such as the petitioners were de-
categorised for want of eligible candidates. Now the
petitioners are left to fend for their seats in the common pool
consisting of de-categorised seats. It is, however, not denied
by the petitioners that the process adopted for de-
categorisation of seats is as per the applicable
enactments/Rules.
18. The petitioners are in-service candidates. It
would have been open for them, as has been conceded by
- 18 -
the respondents, to appear in the Mop-up round of
counselling under the General Category in respect of
decategorised seats. Given the delay in finalising the seat
allocation in view of the successive writ petitions being filed
and the orders passed from time to time. In our opinion, it
could have been a matter of consideration whether the
petitioners could have been relegated to appear in the Mop-
up round to avail the chance of seat allocation as per their
merit.
19. However, as noted above, the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court at Dharwad in its order dated 12.01.2026 had
ordered, which order was passed on the concession made by
the Additional Government Advocate, that the petitioner
therein be permitted to participate in the Mop-up round as
an in-service Candidate and it was observed that the
respondents were willing to permit the petitioner to choose a
seat of choice from the available seats. Moreover, in the
operative part of the order, this Court had ordered that the
petitioner therein would be offered first preference in the
order of merit along with similarly situated candidates if any,
to choose from the available 1501 seats for regular posts of
- 19 -
Graduate Courses and 110 seats reserved for DNB Courses,
which are offered only to HFW in-service Candidates. It was
further observed that after allotting seat to the petitioner,
remaining seats will be offered to other regular PG Course
Candidates in the Mop-up round.
20. It has not been stated by the respondents that
any challenge has been made to the aforesaid judgment and
order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court at Dharwad. A direction is already issued in the
aforesaid order of 12.01.2026 providing that similarly
situated candidates as the petitioner therein will be offered
first preference and shall be treated as in-service candidates.
We therefore direct that both the petitioners herein shall also
be treated as in-service Candidates and will be offered first
preference in the order of merit along with the petitioner of
Writ Petition No.11014/2025, to choose from the available
regular PG seats and seats for DNB Courses which are
offered only to Health and Family Welfare in-service
Candidates. After such allotment of seats, remaining seats
will be offered to the other regular PG Course Candidates in
Mop-up round.
- 20 -
21. The aforesaid directions find support from the
aforesaid letter dated 09.02.2026 written by the Secretariat,
Department of Medical Education, Department of Health and
Family Welfare, Government of Karnataka, which is enclosed
as Annexure-R6 to the statement of objections filed on
behalf of the State-respondents.
22. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
After the aforesaid order was passed, learned counsel
appearing for the KEA states that the Mop-up round as well as
the stray vacancy round are required to be held and directions
may be issued.
- 21 -
As such, we direct that the Mop-up round be held anytime
before 05.03.2026 and stray vacancy round be held anytime
before 12.03.2026. Further, the entire process be concluded on
or before 18.03.2026. It is made clear that the timelines
provided are only indicative of the outer limits of time, and it
shall be open for the respondent KEA to complete the entire
process as soon as possible.
Learned counsel for the KEA states that the MCC is not a
party but they have to provide open access to the portal for
enabling the KEA to make the necessary uploading of the lists.
It shall be open for the KEA to take up the matter with
the MCC and we have no reason to doubt that the MCC shall
make necessary accommodation in that regard.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN,KGR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
