Srinivasa T. vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors. Etc. Etc.

2026 INSC 1173
Non-Reportable


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.21195-21196 of 2023)


SRINIVASA T. & ORS.
…. APPELLANTS
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

…. RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

“When the winds of politics change direction, it is the
common man, who gets caught in the storm”.
( Unknown)

Leave granted.
2. A recruitment of 2011 is hanging fire still, putting to peril the
aspirations of many, who have crossed the age for consideration
and shattering the hopes of the selected few, from continuing in
employment. Six appellants who would be over aged now have
Signature Not Verified
relentlessly pursued their cause in their zeal to join the Karnataka
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.10.29
15:57:38 IST
Reason:
Civil Services.
Page 1 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023

3. Long back, on 03.11.2011, the State Government issued a
notification for recruitment to 362 posts of Group ‘A’ and ‘B’
Officers, as per the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted
Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules,
1997 (for short, the Rules of 1997). A total of 1,38,307 candidates
applied for the recruitment, out of which 91,667 appeared for the
preliminary examination. The candidates who sat for the mains;
having qualified in the preliminary, were 6,211 out of which 1,090
were called for interview. In the year 2013, on the advice of the
Advocate General, based on a complaint regarding illegalities in
the selection, the State Government withheld the publication of the
final select list, pending an inquiry, handed over to the State CID.
Gross manipulations of the recruitment process, including
rampant corruption and instances of blatant nepotism of officials of
the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) were revealed in
the inquiry, based on which the entire recruitment was cancelled.
4. The selected candidates approached the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal (KAT) which quashed the G.O. But a
bunch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by the aggrieved
candidates, including the appellants herein against the order of
the KAT went in their favour. The State Government admitted the
Page 2 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023

irregularities and the cancellation of the selection list dated
21.03.2014 was affirmed by the High Court. The High Court’s order
was challenged before this Court in three Special Leave Petitions
which were dismissed by Annexure P2 order in Civil Appeal
Nos.3543-3555 of 2018, ‘Avinash C. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka
and Ors.’ . This Court referred to the findings of the High Court
which spoke inter alia of material on record, in the form of call
details between candidates and Members of the KPSC. In the
interview, certain candidates were awarded exactly the same
marks, revealing no objective assessment by the individual
members; at least in the case of 566 candidates. The digital video
recorder in the KPSC building was replaced to destroy the
evidence and there appeared to be extraneous reasons in
awarding marks. This Court refused to interfere with the
annulment of the selection as carried out by the State Government
itself, affirmed by the High Court. There was a contention raised of
only certain candidates having been found to be tainted which was
rejected on the reasoning that when the selection itself is tainted,
segregating tainted and untainted candidates would only interfere
with the purity of the selection process. While upholding the
decision of the High Court, the contention of some of the parties
Page 3 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023

that the written examination is not vitiated and the selection could
be continued from the stage of interview was directed to be raised
before the High Court.

5. Relying on this liberty reserved, Interlocutory Applications
were filed in the disposed of PILs, seeking restoration of the
recruitment process from the stage of publication of the results of
the written examination. By Annexure P3, the High Court found that
the revelations from the preliminary report of investigation were
outrageous and scandalous which were also reproduced in
Annexure P3. The irregularities in evaluation of answer scripts
were found to be shockingly disgraceful, shaking the very
confidence placed upon the Public Service Commission, a
Constitutional Body meant to act in aid of efficient and smooth
functioning of the administration by making recruitments without
any taint thereat. The High Court rejected the prayer to resume the
recruitment process, which order was again unsuccessfully
challenged before this Court, as is seen from Annexures P4 to P6.
6. Quite interestingly, after more than a decade from the stage
of recruitment, when obviously the political currents kept on
changing, the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and
Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 (the
Page 4 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023

Act of 2022) was brought out which is produced at Annexure P7.
The unsuccessful candidates who had been pursuing the matter
challenged the Act of 2022 before the KAT by a petition on
15.03.2022. Simultaneously, one individual filed a Writ Petition on
23.03.2022 against the very same Act of 2022. The High Court
dismissed the Writ Petition with a cryptic order dated 21.04.2022,
which is impugned herein. In view of the order passed by the High
Court in the Writ Petition, the KAT refused to grant an interim order
which was again challenged before the High Court which too stood
rejected by an order dated 23.08.2022, following the earlier order
in the Writ Petition. The refusal to grant interim order is also taken
up before this Court. We are, hence, considering the challenge
against both the said orders, one in the PIL and the other in the Writ
Petition, which affirmed the order of the KAT rejecting an interim
order.
7. In the meanwhile, out of the 362 candidates selected, 46 were
found tainted. Appointment was given to 191 candidates out of
which 14 are tainted. The appointments were based on the Act of
2022. Continuing the narration on facts, the writ petitioner who
challenged the Act of 2022 in the PIL filed an SLP before this Court
which was not pursued properly and the said SLP stood rejected
Page 5 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023

but leaving open the contention of the petitioners herein whose
SLP was entertained.
8. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the
appellants and Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appeared
for the respondent-State.
9. Mr. Shyam Divan argued that the Act of 2022 effectively
nullified the decision of this Court which is against the accepted
principle of validation which can only be legislated when an
apparent error or defect, as noticed by a Constitutional Court is
removed by a subsequent legislation paving way for the actions
taken under the legislation to be validated. It is trite that the
legislature cannot sit in appeal over a decision by the High Court
or this Court and a host of decisions were also placed before us to
urge the above proposition.
10. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent-State at the outset, candidly submitted that the
legislation cannot at all be supported. Mr. C.A. Sundram, learned
Senior Counsel and Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, learned Senior
Counsel along with the other Advocates on Record appearing for
the successful candidates, not only feebly attempted to sustain the
Page 6 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023

legislation but also vigorously canvassed the case of the successful
candidates on grounds of equity.
11. Having gone through the decisions of the High Court and this
Court at the earlier instances, both in the first round and in the
second round, nothing remains to be looked into to sustain the
recruitment of 2011 which has been set aside not merely on defect
or irregularity noticed in the process, but on rampant corruption
and blatant nepotism having vitiated the entire selection. There
could be no equity, insofar as the selected candidates are
concerned, especially the selection being based on a recruitment
which is declared as tainted by the Constitutional Courts and the
appointment having been effectuated based on a stillborn
legislation; the Act of 2022.
12. Suffice it to refer to Medical Council of India v. State of
1
Kerala in which this Court was seized of an identical situation.
Therein admissions to two medical colleges in the State of Kerala
for the academic year 2016-17 were found to be illegal, by the
Admission Supervisory Committee, which decision was upheld by
the High Court of Kerala and by this Court. The State then

1
(2019) 13 SCC 185
Page 7 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023

promulgated an Ordinance for regularising the admission of 180
students who were illegally admitted in the two colleges on the
proclaimed laudable objective of the hardship visited on the
students; just as the intention revealed by the State of Karnataka, in
the instant case, as coming out from the legislation, of relieving the
hardship to the selected candidates.
13. The Act No. 22 produced as Annexure P7 itself makes
interesting reading especially in the Statements of Objects and
Reasons, after the narration of the facts starting from the
commencement of the recruitment. The order of the KAT at the first
instance is noticed where it quashed the order of the Government
cancelling the recruitment and directed appointment to the
applicants. It is then stated that the candidates were not
responsible and none of them were arrayed as accused. The
Chairman, Members, Staff and some middlemen were alone
arraigned in the chargesheet filed by the CID. It was hence found
that there is no justification in penalizing the candidates and
2
relying on the oft-quoted principle in Taylor v. Taylor that when
something is prescribed to be done in a particular manner, the

2
(1875) 1 Ch.D 426
Page 8 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023

same shall be done in that manner or not at all, the
annulment/cancellation of the recruitment was set aside by the
legislation. However, there is nothing stated as to the irregular
manner in which the cancellation was made and in any event the
cancellation having been upheld by the High Court and this Court,
the power does not lie with the legislature to annul the
cancellation, even by a legislation and thus nullify the judgments
of the Constitutional Courts. The lofty ideal stated in the legislation
of providing justice to the 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers falls
flat for reason of the recruitment itself having been found tainted
with corruption and nepotism by the High Court, which decision
was upheld by this Court in a Civil Appeal.
1

14. This Court in Medical Council of India relied on a number
of decisions from which we refer to Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara
3
Etc. v. The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. and Another which
held that it is not open to the legislature to render a judgment
ineffective, though, it is open, within certain limits, to amend the
provisions of an enactment, retrospectively and declare that the
law shall be deemed to have been, as enacted subsequently and

3
(1970) 1 SCC 509
Page 9 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023

validate the same, notwithstanding a decision of the Court which
invalidated the enactment and the consequential action based on
the defect, which stood removed in the subsequent legislation.
4

15. In re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal cautioned that if the
exercise of power of judicial review can be set at naught by the
State Government or the State Legislature by overriding the
decision given against it, then it would sound the death knell of rule
of law. The Constitution Bench, however, also observed that it is
open to change the law in general by changing the very basis, but
it is not open to set aside an individual decision inter parties,
affecting their rights and liabilities; which is the exercise
attempted by the State in enacting the Act of 2022.
5

16. S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala and Ors. laid down that the
legislative function consists of making law and not declaring what
the law shall be. While making a law retrospectively and validating
it, notwithstanding the decision of a Court of law, it is permissible
to alter the very basis of an earlier decision but cannot directly
annul the final judgment by a subsequent legislation, which act of
the legislature would be declared unconstitutional.

4
1993 Supp (1) SCC 96
5
(2015) 4 SCC 400
Page 10 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023

17. We have no doubt in our minds that the subject legislation is
unconstitutional. We set aside the same, as also the judgments
impugned herein, both in the PIL and the Writ Petition filed against
the order of the KAT. The PIL though not agitated by the individual
who filed it, would stand allowed transposing the appellants herein
as the petitioners. In any event, in a PIL, the petitioner’s role is
minimal, especially when it is not prosecuted properly and the
Constitutional Court finding substance in the challenge made, de
hors the participation of the writ petitioner, would examine the
matter on accepted principles of law. It is trite that a public interest
litigant cannot move for withdrawal of the petition on the principle
of dominus litis, without the leave of the Court. In the present case,
what comes to fore is an attempt by an unconnected individual to
stultify a valid challenge to the notification. We cannot but record,
a little bit of surprise and a lot more alarm, insofar as the impugned
judgments are concerned. The PIL was cursorily dealt with, and the
later Writ Petition was also dealt with in a similar manner, throwing
to winds every tenet of law; upholding an enactment clearly
beyond the scope of the powers conferred on the law-making
authority and bordering on the absurd.
Page 11 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023

18. The candidates who were selected and who were not found
tainted by the CID has made a fervent plea before us in their
written submissions not to disturb their appointments. Their first
argument is that the prosecution initiated by the CID only arrayed
members of the KPSC and none of the candidates, much less the
selected ones in the FIR or in the chargesheet. Subsequently, the
cognizance taken by the Special Court was set aside by the High
Court. We are not convinced that the prosecution having not
resulted in a trial would, in any way, enable the continuation of the
selected candidates, which is premised on the legislation under
challenge in the present proceedings. The intervenors, the
selected candidates also contended that in the earlier round, the
State had been defending the cancellation and hence, retaining the
untainted candidates could not have been raised as a plea. Now,
the State has changed its stance, as evidenced from the legislation,
is their argument. It is the shifting stances of the State, depending
on the hues and colours in the changing times, we criticised at the
outset. Further, the entire selection having been cancelled, there
is no scope for now entertaining a contention of the tainted and
untainted candidates to be segregated on the basis of a CID report.
More importantly, the appointment of the selected candidates was
Page 12 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023

only by virtue of the impugned legislation which we have found to
be unconstitutional.
19. Having found the Act of 2022 unconstitutional, we cannot but
observe that the appointments made pursuant to the tainted
recruitment will also come to an end. The passage of a decade and
a half from the initial recruitment restrains us from resuming the
entire selection from the stage at which it was found tainted; i.e.
after the stage of the preliminary examination. Moulding the relief
at this stage, we would only direct the State Government to notify
the recruitment for the vacant posts, remaining as of now in the
Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ services as per the presently existing
recruitment rules in which the appointed candidates who were not
found tainted and the six appellants herein, as also the petitioners
in the pending proceedings before the KAT, be granted age
relaxation to appear in the recruitment process as a one-time
opportunity, along with other candidates now eligible. If selected,
we make it clear that their seniority shall be only from the date of
appointment and they shall not be entitled to any back wages or
notional appointment, from an earlier point of time. Insofar as the
persons who are continuing now, if selected, then their seniority
shall also be only from the date of their fresh appointment as per
Page 13 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023

the selection and recruitment directed by us. However, if the
persons working now gets selected and appointed, the period they
have been in service pursuant to their earlier appointment shall be
reckoned for computation of their pension and retirement benefits.
20. With the above directions, the appeals stand allowed.
21. The Interlocutory Applications filed for impleadment, and
the interventions prayed for shall stand rejected.


.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)



..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 29, 2026.
Page 14 of 14
Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023