(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order quashing the impugned communication of the Respondent No.1 dated 06.07.2026 at Annexure a and the communications dated 20.07.2026, 21.07.2026 and 23.07.2026 at Annexures H, K and L respectively to the extent it denies the petitioners KKR quota status and directs him to proceed as a general merit candidate and etc.)

Oral Order

Jayant Banerji, J.

1. This petition is filed with the following prayers:

          (a) Issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order quashing the impugned communication of the Respondent No.1 dated 06.07.2026 at Annexure A and the communications dated 20.07.2026; 21.07.2026 and 23.07.2026 at Annexure H, K and L respectively to the extent it denies the Petitioner's KKR quota status and directs him to proceed as a General Merit candidate;

          (b) Issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order, directing the Respondent No.1 (COMEDK) to forthwith reconsider the application of the Petitioner for KKR category seats and to treat the Petitioner as a Kalyana Karnataka Region (KKR) candidate for the purpose of COMEDK UGET 2026 counselling;

          (c) Issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order directing the Respondent No.1 to forthwith afford the Petitioner an opportunity to submit the correct Domicile Certificate in the prescribed Annexure B format, and upon submission thereof, to consider the Petitioner's candidature for KKR category seats;

          (d) pass any such other order/s or grant such other relief/s that this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice."

2. The case of the petitioner is that, given the place of his residence, he is entitled to reservation, he being a resident of Kalyana-Karnataka Region. A copy of the certificate issued for the purpose of such reservation for education and employment, is enclosed as Annexure-G to the writ petition.

3. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of filling the application form, due to inadvertence, instead of uploading the domicile certificate, an application for the domicile certificate was erroneously uploaded, which was also a requirement under the brochure issued by respondent No.1. However, the certificate issued by the competent authority under The Karnataka Civil Services (Reservation in Appointments for the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Rules, 2013 was not uploaded. It is stated that the residence certificate was issued on 10.11.2025. It is, therefore, contented that a genuine and bonafide error had occurred on the part of the petitioner, because of which, the relevant residence certificate was not uploaded.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as learned AGA appearing for respondent No.2.

5. Respondent No.1 contends that the brochure itself prescribes uploading of the various certificates at the time of application for the Comed-K UGET examination, 2026. It is stated that as per the terms of the brochure, it was imperative on the part of the petitioner to upload the residence certificate along with reservation certificate at the time of application, which admittedly was not done. It is contented that therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the residence certificate was submitted to respondent No.1 along with an email dated 21.07.2026. However, the respondent replied that the correct document was not submitted on-time and therefore, his category has been updated to general merit.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent states that a few seats are available under the reserved category and given the facts of the instant case, respondent No.1 is willing to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically under the KKR category of reservation, provided, the instant case is not treated as a precedent for the future.

8. We appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the respondent and the stand of respondent No.1 in this regard. We are aware that given the stringent provisions mentioned in the brochure, it is not open for a candidate to stake claim to the benefit of reservation without the relevant documents being uploaded.

9. The petition, is therefore, disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach respondent No.1 before 07.00 p.m. today, since it is stated by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the office shall be open till 07.00 p.m. today, along with a downloaded copy of the order.

10. Respondent No.1 would, in terms of the concession made by it, consider the application of the petitioner. This order shall not be treated as a precedent.

11. The petitioner is permitted to serve a downloaded copy of this order on the respondent No.1.