logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 837 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Karnataka
Case No : Writ Petition No. 20645 Of 2026 (EDN-RES)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Parties : G.V. Poornachandra Versus The Principal Secretary Department Of Youth Empowerment & Sports, Bengaluru & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Deepak Shetty, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1-R5, Prathima Honnapura, AAG, Pramodhini Kishan, AGA, R6, N.K. Ramesh, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 08-07-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC 34392,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
- Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions (Amendment) Rules, 2024, Rule 9

2. Catch Words:
- non‑eligibility list
- sports quota
- representation
- certiorari
- hearing
- fresh representation

3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging an undated non‑eligibility list published by the Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) that allegedly excluded him from the sports quota. The petitioner contended that Rule 9 of the 2024 amendment rules mandates consideration of candidates who have represented the State or Country in sports, and that he satisfied this criterion. The Additional Advocate General argued that actual representation is essential for eligibility. The Court held that the matter should be decided by the Commissioner (Respondent 2), the designated authority under the KEA brochure. The petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation with supporting documents before 09‑07‑2026, and the Commissioner was ordered to hear him, pass a speaking order by 11‑07‑2026, and keep the online entry open until 15‑07‑2026. The petition was thereafter disposed of.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This WP is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the non-eligibility list dated nil issued by Respondent Nos.2 to 3 which was published by the Respondent No.6 On 05/07/2026 in their official portal in so far as petitioner in concern. the copy of the impugned order dated nil issued by Respondent Nos.2 to 3 which was published by the Respondent No.6 on 05/07/2026 in their official portal is herewith produced as Annexure-A and etc)

Oral Order

Jayant Banerji, J.

1. This petition is filed seeking to challenge the undated non-eligibility list which was published by the Commissioner, Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) on 05.07.2026 in their official portal which, is stated to contain the name of the petitioner.

2. It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions (Amendment) Rules, 2024, Rule 9 of the original Rules have been substituted to include those candidates who have represented the State or the Country and have participated in sports competitions during the last three financial years including the financial year in which the candidate has applied for Common Entrance Test (CET) under the Sports Quota, are required to be considered. It is his case that the petitioner is fully eligible to be considered under the Sports Quota. All necessary documents have been submitted by him before the KEA at the time of applying for the UGCET- 2026 admissions.

3. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned AGA as well as Shri N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the KEA. The submission of the learned Additional Advocate General is that it is essential criteria for the candidate to have represented the State or the Country to be considered for admission under the Sports Quota.

4. In our considered opinion, it would be appropriate if the Commissioner / respondent No.2, who is the designated Authority as provided in the Brochure issued by the KEA pertaining to UGCET-2026, to take a decision in the matter. We therefore permit the petitioner to move a fresh representation enclosing all documents and raising all lawful contentions that are available to him. This representation shall be filed before the respondent No.2, tomorrow (09.07.2026) in the forenoon.

5. The Commissioner / respondent No.2 is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at 5.00 p.m. on 09.07.2026. The petitioner is permitted to place all documents in support of his submissions before the Commissioner. Thereafter the Commissioner / respondent No.2 shall take a decision and pass a speaking order, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. The Commissioner shall have time till 11.07.2026 to communicate the order to the petitioner. Till 15.07.2026, the respondents shall ensure that online option entry is kept open for the petitioner.

6. The petition is disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal