An appeal has been filed before the Karnataka High Court against an order which dismissed a plea challenging State Government's recruitment notification for 15,000 school teachers over allegedly excluding Urdu-medium and other linguistic-minority teaching posts.

For context, the single judge had while refusing to entertain the plea granted liberty to the petitioners therein to approach the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal to seek appropriate relief. This, after the court was informed in an identical matter, a coordinate single judge bench had relegated the petitioners therein to the tribunal in view of the alternate remedy.

The appeal was mentioned before a division bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni sitting at the Dharwad bench, which directed the registry to list the matter.

The plea is likely be listed before tomorrow.

The appeal filed by a group of Urdu and Hindi medium teacher aspirants, a registered society working for linguistic minority rights and a minor student, states that the single judge mechanically applied the 'alternative remedy rule' without considering the distinct constitutional questions raised regarding linguistic minority rights under Articles 14, 21A, 29(1) and 350A of the Constitution. Such violation of constitutional rights cannot be agitated before KSAT, the appeal adds.

The single judge bench had on 18.09.2026, noted in the order that since the notification challenged is in respect of appointment of government teachers, the petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy before KSAT which can be availed.

The single judge bench, while dismissing the Urdu Teachers' plea, also noted that on 01.09.2026, a coordinate Bench in WP No. 107217/2026, in a matter concerning B.Com. B.Ed. graduates, relegated the petitioners therein to the KSAT on the ground of alternative remedy.

Disagreeing with the reliance on the coordinate bench order, the appellants have added that the current challenge is with respect to the constitutionality of a state-wide policy decision excluding an entire linguistic medium.

However, the appeal states that the previous judgment relied upon by the single judge was 'factually distinguishable', and therein, the litigants were only aggrieved by their own ineligibility under the qualification criteria.

The single judge bench did not independently examine the distinct facts, parties, reliefs and constitutional questions raised before disposing of the petition, the appellants argue.

The appellants have attempted to highlight the alleged flaw of the order by stating that the jurisdiction of the KSAT under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is confined to 'service matters,', whereas the present challenge to the 'total exclusion' of an entire linguistic medium from recruitment can't be equated to it.

The appellants have relied upon precedents such as Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107, and The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 5121/2021) to contend that the 'alternative remedy' rule is subject to well-defined exceptions, including breach of fundamental rights and challenge to the vires of a notification, each of which is rightly attracted in the present case.

The first appellant is a teacher who has less than a year remaining before crossing the maximum permissible age of 43 years prescribed for the 2B category under the impugned notification, the appeal states further, emphasising on the urgency of the matter since the recruitment process is continuing.

On another front, the appellants state that Justice Anant Ramanth Hegde [before the roster change], in the very same writ petition had issued notice and called for the State's explanation without doubting maintainability, and the state had raised no objection at that stage regarding maintainability.

For context, the High Court on August 25 had sought an explanation from the State Government on the alleged exclusion of Urdu-medium and other linguistic minority teaching posts from its ongoing recruitment drive for 15,000 school teachers, while refusing to stay the recruitment process.

The appellants have now sought to allow the writ appeal, and set aside the order dated 18.09.2026, or alternatively, restore the original writ petition for disposal on merits in accordance with the law.

Context

The original petition had challenged the August 11 recruitment notification by the state on the ground that it invites applications for teaching posts in English and Kannada mediums but allegedly does not provide for recruitment of teachers for Urdu-medium and other linguistic-minority schools.

In the plea and appeal, the petitioners claimed/claim that despite the existence of 4,236 Urdu-medium schools across Karnataka (3,934 Government and 302 aided) and a clear shortage of Urdu-proficient teachers, the notification made no provision for a single Urdu-medium teacher post or for other linguistic minority medium posts, including Hindi and Marathi.

Reliance was also placed on the Comptroller and Auditor General's Performance Audit (2024), which recorded that in the test-checked Urdu Medium schools across eight districts, 38 schools did not have Urdu-proficient teachers. Teachers qualified for the Kannada medium had allegedly been deployed in their place according to the appellants.

In the appeal, the petitioners contend that the exclusion violates the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instruction) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2026, as well as constitutional guarantees under Articles 19, 21, 29(1) and 350A.

The appellants also point out that the State had established the Directorate of Urdu and Other Linguistic Minority Schools in 1987, recognising Urdu-medium and other linguistic-minority education as a distinct component of Karnataka's school education system. Urdu-medium teachers were included in the previous recruitment exercise conducted in 2022, and deliberately excluded in 2026 when there are no disclosed policy or circumstantial changes.

The appeal has been filed through Advocates Khalil ur Rehaman, Zainulabideen and Mohd. Rehan.

Case Title: Asma Ghori (Mogare) & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.