Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 10 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Aarush Nadagouda, aged about 18, residing at Ward No.1, Post Jawalagera, Sindhnau​r Taluk, Raichur District (current address: No.392 2nd Cross, 2nd Main KGE Layout, Opp. M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, Bengaluru‑560094), represented by Advocate Rupa Ron.
  • Respondents:

1. Consortium of Medical, Engineering and Dental Colleges of Karnataka (COMEDK), Office: No.132 2nd Floor, 11th Main 17th Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru‑560055, represented by its Executive Secretary.

2. State of Karnataka, represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru‑560001.

3. Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA), represented by its Executive Director, 18th Cross, Sampige Road, Malleswaram, Bengaluru‑560012.

  • Nature of Petition: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking (a) certiorari to quash COMEDK communications dated 06‑07‑2026 (Annexure A) and 20‑07‑2026, 21‑07‑2026, 23‑07‑2026 (Annexures H, K, L) that denied KKR quota status; (b) mandamus directing COMEDK to reconsider the application as a Kalyana Karnataka Region (KKR) candidate; (c) mandamus directing COMEDK to allow submission of the correct domicile certificate in prescribed Annexure B format; (d) any other relief deemed fit.
  • Background: The petitioner claimed entitlement to reservation based on residence in the Kalyana‑Karnataka Region. A domicile certificate issued under The Karnataka Civil Services (Reservation in Appointments for the Hyderabad‑Karnataka Region) Rules, 2013, dated 10‑11‑2025, was not uploaded with the application; instead, an application for the domicile certificate was mistakenly uploaded, contrary to the brochure requirement to upload the actual certificate.
  • Procedural History: The petitioner submitted the correct domicile certificate via email on 21‑07‑2026, but COMEDK replied that the document was not submitted on time, resulting in the petitioner’s category being changed to General Merit.
  • Respondent’s Position: COMEDK argued that the brochure explicitly required uploading the residence and reservation certificates at the time of application, which the petitioner failed to do, thus disqualifying him from the KKR quota.
  • Petitioner’s Argument: The omission was a genuine, bonafide error; the correct certificate had been submitted subsequently; therefore, relief should be granted.
  • Respondent’s Concession: COMEDK indicated a willingness to consider the petitioner’s case sympathetically under the KKR category, provided the decision does not set a precedent.

Final Outcome

  • The Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to approach COMEDK before 07:00 pm on the same day (10 August 2026) and to serve a downloaded copy of this order on COMEDK.
  • COMEDK, based on its concession, will consider the petitioner’s application for KKR quota seats, but the order shall not be treated as a precedent for future cases.

Topics: Reservation, Education, Legal Procedure