S G JAMALUDHEEN ETC ETC vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS ETC ETC
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 235
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6371-6384 OF 2022
S G JAMALUDHEEN ETC. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA &
OTHERS ETC. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6385-6409 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2601-2626 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.32427-32452/2014)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6410-6488 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2632-2661 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.2645-2674/2015)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2662-2665 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.34490-34493/2014)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2666-2929 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.4713-4976/2015)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2930-2931 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.1478-1479/2015)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2932 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30334/2016)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2026.03.13
13:55:17 IST
Reason:
1
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2933-2934 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8394-8395/2026
arising out of CC Nos.2570-2571/2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2935-2973 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.3911-3949/2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2974-3012 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8396-8434/2026
arising out of CC Nos.2821-2859/2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3013-3051 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8435-8473/2026
arising out of CC Nos.2880-2918/2017)
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of Diary No.18428/2024)
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of Diary No.18802/2024)
CONTEMPT PETITION NOS.228-241 OF 2025
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6371-6384/2022
CONTEMPT PETITION NOS.685-698 OF 2025
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6371-6384/2022
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is granted in
S.L.P. (C) CC Nos.2821-2859/2017 and 2880-2918/2017.
2
2. Delay condoned in S.L.P. (C) CC Nos.2570-2571/2017.
3. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.09.2014
passed the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ
Petition Nos. 6842-6880/2010 and connected writ petitions, the
appellants are before this Court.
5. A Notification was published on 18.08.2006 by the
Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short, “the KPSC”)
inviting applications for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. A
total of 145 posts were advertised. The qualifications for the post
were also spelled out in the said Notification. However, there
were several Original Applications filed before the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) challenging
the Notification dated 18.08.2006 after the recruitment process
stood completed in terms of the said Notification. By order dated
25.05.2010 passed by the Tribunal, the Original Applications
filed against the Notification dated 18.08.2006 and the
recruitment process pursuant thereto were set aside. There were
less than twenty applicants in the original applications viz
3
Application Nos.182-185, 187-195, and 197-202 of 2007. By the
said judgment, the Tribunal quashed the Notification dated
18.08.2006, as it was held to be at variance with Condition No.3
of the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government by
Notification dated 19.06.1989 issued in exercise of powers under
Section 213(4) of the Motors Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘MV ACT’, for
short). The Tribunal also quashed the appointments made
pursuant to the Notification dated 18.08.2006. Condition No.3 of
the Central Government Notification dated 19.06.1989 was that
candidates must have a working experience of at least one year
in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of
light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger
motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine.
6. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal, writ
petitions were filed before the Karnataka High Court impugning
the judgment of the Tribunal. By way of the impugned order in
Writ Petition Nos.6842-6880 of 2010 (S-KAT) and connected
matters, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the
challenge and sustained the order of the Tribunal.
4
7. The appellants being the State, the selected and appointed
candidates and others are in appeal before us against the
aforesaid order of the High Court sustaining the order of the
Tribunal. This Court had, vide order dated 04.12.2014, issued
notice in the matter and also directed the continuation of the
services of the appellants.
8. We have heard learned senior counsel and learned counsel
for the appellants and respondents, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State of Karnataka, learned counsel
for the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) at length.
9. On conclusion of arguments addressed by the learned
senior counsel and learned counsel for the appellants, learned
senior counsel and learned counsel for the respondents, during
the course of their submissions stated that, if the State
Government as well as the KPSC are willing to accommodate
only sixteen (16) persons, who have been agitating this matter
from the initial stage before the Tribunal and thereafter as
respondents before the Karnataka High Court and now before
this Court, then possibly the respondents may consider
withdrawing the original applications that they had filed before
5
the Tribunal and consequently, the matter could be accordingly
resolved.
10. It was submitted by learned senior counsel and learned
counsel for the respondents that once the original applications
filed by the respondents are withdrawn with the permission of
this Court, then the impugned orders would pale into
insignificance; that the respondents would have no claim
whatsoever over the appointments made by the State vis-a-vis
the appellants herein; that there would in fact be no lis
subsisting between the parties and having regard to the long
drawn out litigation and the passage of time, interest of justice
would be served in this case if ultimately the State would grant
orders of appointment to only 16 persons who have been
identified and who, according to them, were eligible for being
appointed at the relevant point of time. Therefore, they
submitted that this Court may accept the proposal and
submission made on behalf of the respondents and possibly give
a quietus to the controversy.
11. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the
appellants have no objection to such a submission being
6
considered so long as their appointments are intact and the
impugned orders are set aside by this Court or would cease to
apply to them.
12. Taking note of the said submission, yesterday (on
25.02.2026), we passed the following order -
“We have heard learned senior counsel and learned
counsel for the parties, learned Additional
Advocate General for the State of Karnataka,
learned counsel for KPSC, learned senior counsel
and learned counsel for the respondents at length
and on several dates.
One of the ways of putting an end to the controversy
in these appeals is by resolving the issue amicably.
That could be achieved provided the controversy itself
pales into significance. It could do so if the
respondents themselves withdraw the original
applications that they had filed before Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal (KAT) which assailed the
recruitment of Motor Vehicle Inspectors in question.
Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that they would withdraw
their applications and consequently the orders
passed thereon by the High Court would then pale
into insignificance if already identified 16 persons
whom they represent are also accommodated as
Motor Vehicle Inspectors. They submitted that the
State may well accommodate the aforeaid 16 persons
by recruiting them as Motor Vehicle Inspectors
without they claiming any back-wages or seniority or
benefit of past service if the State issues an
appointment order in their favour by not taking into
consideration their bar or age other words granting
an age relaxation to them. If that could be done by
7
the State then the 105+33 appointments made by the
State could be saved. The appointed persons could
continue in service and the matter could be resolved
as such.
Having heard learned senior counsel and learned
counsel for the respective parties on this aspect of the
matter, we find that the learned counsel for the
respondents must first submit a list of persons whom
they state should be appointed by the respondent-
State along with their eligibility criteria including
their driving license details, their present age, etc.
and their application numbers before the KAT. The
said list should be in furtherance of this order. The
already identified 16 candidates who are seeking
appointment must also submit an affidavit before this
Court stating that they would withdraw their original
applications which they have filed before the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and they would
have no claim whatsoever against the appointed
candidates which would be 105+33 candidates.
Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that
if this could resolve the controversy, he would seek
further instruction in the matter.
Learned counsel for the KPSC also submitted that
ultimately it is for the State to consider the manner in
which the dispute in these cases could be resolved.
Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the
appellants would have no objection if the matter
could be resolved in this manner.
Hence, this order is made without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the respective parties.
List the matter tomorrow, i.e. on 26.02.2026 as item
No. 101.”
8
13. Today, the 16 respondents have filed their affidavit which
has been verified by one of the 16 persons for and on behalf of
all the 16 persons, whose details are as under:
Sl. No. Respondent Name DOB &
KAT
Application No.
Diploma
Automobile/
Engineering
Mechanical
1
Engineering
Driving
Licence
Details
One year
workshop
experience
Age
1. H. G. Somashekara 24/03/74
182/07
Dtd : 05.01.2007
DME (AT)
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
51 years
2. Maralinagappa K 01/06/1971
54 years
183/07
Dtd : 05.01.2007
DME (AT)
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
3. Venugopal 56 years 184/07
Dtd : 05.01.2007
DME
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
13/01/1971
55 years
185/07
Dtd: 05.01.2007
DME (AT)
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
4. Veerabhadrappa
Harihar
5. Kumar H M 28/06/1968
57 yrs.
187/07
Dtd : 05.01.2007
DAE
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
6. K. Yogendra 14/12/1974
51 years
195/07
Dtd : 05.01.2007
DAE
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
7. Hareesh B K 27/10/1975
50 years
198/07
Dtd : 05.01.2007
DME (AE)
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
8. Anand. K. C 01/08/1976
49 years
199/07
Dtd : 05.01.2007
DME (AT)
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
9. Rajesh K 17/03/1972
53 years
200/07
Dtd : 05.01.2007
DME (AT)
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
10. Arun Surendra Patil 18/06/1971
201/07
Dtd : 05.01.2007
DAE
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
54 years
202/07
Dtd : 05.01.2007
DME
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
11.
50 years
Shashi Kumar E
20/02/1977
49 years
2426/2008
Dtd : 9.05.2008
DME
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
12. B.N
Shivananjegowda
9
Sl. No. Respondent Name DOB &
KAT
Application No.
Diploma
Automobile/
Engineering
Mechanical
1
Engineering
Driving
Licence
Details
One year
workshop
experience
Age
21/03/1969
56 years
2360/2008 DME (AT)
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
13. Kamble Satish
Kumar
14. Raghunandan A R 09/06/1984
182/07
Impleadment
Applicant
DAE
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
41 years
15. Siddaramaiah 21/07/1981
44 years
1456/2008 &
5984/2008
DME
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
16. Venkatesh
04/01/1975
51 years
1419/2008
Dtd : 8.03.2008
DAE
Attached
Yes
Attached
Yes
Attached
Waddar
14. These 16 respondents have also given the following
undertakings in the affidavit, which is at paragraphs 7 to 10 of
the affidavit and which read as under:-
“7. That the deponent humbly submits the 16
already identified candidates shall hereby withdraw
their original applications which they have filed
before the Ld. Karnataka Administrative Tribunal if
they are appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors in
terms of the KPSC notification dated 17.08.2006 and
corrigendum dated 25.08.2006 notifying recruitment
of motor vehicles inspectors.
8. That the deponent humbly submit that the 16
already identified candidates shall would have no
claim whatsoever against the appointed candidates
which would be 105+33 candidates if they are
appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors in terms of the
KPSC notification dated 17.08.2006 and
corrigendum dated 25.08.2006 notifying recruitment
of motor vehicles inspectors.
10
9. That the deponent humbly submit that the 16
already identified candidates are agreeable that they
shall be placed below the last selected candidate
appointed in terms of the KPSC notification dated
17.08.2006 and corrigendum dated 25.08.2006
notifying recruitment of motor vehicles inspectors
and be placed in the commensurate pay band/grade
pay of Motor Vehicle Inspector of 2006 Recruitment
Process without back wages and without claiming
benefit of past service.
10. That the deponent humbly submit that the 16
already identified candidates have no objection if the
matter could be resolved in this manner, without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
respective parties.”
15. Learned AAG appearing for the State of Karnataka
submitted that the State has a good case on merits and is
confident of succeeding in these matters. However, if this Court
is inclined to give a quietus to the litigation by directing the
State that these 16 persons be appointed as Motor Vehicle
Inspectors, then this order may not be treated as a precedent for
any future case. Learned AAG also submitted that from the date
the appointment orders are issued to these 16 persons may be
reckoned as the date of actual appointment for all legal and
technical purposes.
11
16. Learned AAG for the State of Karnataka, Sri Aman Panwar
submitted that if the respondents undertake to withdraw the
original applications and consequently the impugned order of
the Tribunal as well as of the High Court are no longer
applicable to the State, KPSC as well as the private appellants,
then, in that case, this Court may accordingly give a quietus to
the controversy completely.
17. Learned counsel for the KPSC also submitted that KPSC
would have no objection for the closure of the appeals by an
appropriate order being made in these cases.
18. We have perused the affidavit as well as the prayers made
by the 16 respondents in the affidavit. We find that the 16
respondents have decided to withdraw their original applications
which they had filed before the Tribunal. Consequently, they
have no claim whatsoever against the appointed candidates,
namely, 105+33 (pursuant to the interim orders of this Court);
that these 16 persons would not claim any seniority at par with
the appellants and they are ready and willing to be placed last in
the seniority list having regard to the fact that there have been
subsequent recruitments made to the post of Motor Vehicle
12
Inspector. They would also not claim any monetary benefit
whatsoever except from the date on which they are to be
appointed and in accordance with law.
19. We find that having regard to the long drawn litigation in
the instant case and bearing in mind the fact that the Tribunal
as well as the High Court have set aside 105 appointments,
this Court has passed interim orders in their favour for the
purpose of continuation of the appellants in their respective
posts. The interim orders were also made for the reason that 105
vacancies could not be abruptly caused in the cadre of Motor
Vehicle Inspector.
20. The interim orders passed by this Court on 4.12.2014 and
30.08.2022 read as under:
“04.12.2014
Issue notice.
Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate has entered
appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Harisha S.R., Advocate has entered
appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 15.
Service of notice on these respondents is waived.
Issue notice to the remaining respondents only.
13
Until further orders, such of the appointees who
were inducted into service in the year 2008,
and are continuing in service shall not be
disturbed, and shall be permitted to continue in
service.
30.08.2022
We have heard learned counsel for parties and
record the submissions of learned counsel for the
State as under :-
(i) There are 105 persons who have been working
during the interregnum period of time and in
view of our observations in the Order dated
29.7.2022, learned counsel for the State submits
he has obtained instructions from the Secretary
Transport who is present in Court that these
people will be absorbed from the original date.
(ii) There are 39 persons who initially cleared the
medical test but on some complaints being made,
the medical board was held again and they did
not succeed before the medical board. It is the
say of learned counsel for those applicants that
this was so as a height requirement was taken
into consideration which formed a part of the
advertisement but not part of the Central Rules.
On hearing learned counsel for parties, we feel
that the appropriate course of action would be to
hold a fresh Medical Board for all parameters
excluding the requirement of height and
dependent on that Medical Board would arise
their question of absorption from the prospective
date.
(iii) There are 11 persons more over whom the
learned counsel for the State has serious
objections and would like to withdraw the
affidavit filed earlier on 24.8.2022 3 as it
14
contains some mistakes and that he will file fresh
affidavit within two weeks.
The aforesaid actions taken qua the first two
categories would of course be subject to the final
outcome of the petitions.
Any response to the affidavit filed by the State
can be so filed within two weeks thereafter.
Leave granted.
Listing as per priority of the original date of filing
of the SLP.”
21. The above appellants have continued in service from the
date of their recruitment in view of the interim orders by the
High Court as well as this Court. The appellants have also
completed their probation and some of them have also been
promoted as Senior Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the year 2023.
In the circumstances, we find that the interest of justice would
be served in these appeals if ultimately the controversy could be
resolved in the manner that has been suggested by the parties
through their respective learned senior counsel and learned
counsel.
22. Therefore, we pass the following directions:
(i) We permit the respondents/original applicants to
withdraw the original applications filed by them before the
15
Tribunal. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal as well
as the order of the High Court passed in the Writ Petitions
setting aside the appointment of the appellants herein
would pale into insignificance having no efficacy any
longer.
(ii) The appointment of the appellants herein would not carry
any further controversy and this is particularly so, having
regard to the aforesaid interim orders under the protection
of which they have been discharging their duties thus far.
The interim orders shall therefore be made absolute.
(iii) In view of the above position, the 16 persons, referred to
above, shall be appointed by the respondent/State as
Motor Vehicle Inspectors bearing in mind their
qualifications and other eligibility criteria. The
appointment orders shall be issued to them on before or
31.03.2026. The said 16 persons shall actually assume
charge within a period of one week from the date of the
appointment order.
(iv) The said appointments shall not alter the existing
seniority list and these 16 persons shall be placed at the
16
end of the extant seniority list of Motor Vehicle Inspectors.
(v) These 16 persons so appointed shall not claim any
monetary benefits except for the period from the date they
are appointed.
(vi) The endeavour of this Court is to give a quietus to the long
drawn controversy in the instant case. Therefore, the
respondent-State shall grant age relaxation to 16
respondents herein to be appointed.
(vii) The eligibility criterion regarding possessing a driving
license for any type of four wheeler motor vehicle shall be
insisted upon for these 16 persons to be appointed.
(viii) We observe that the affidavit filed on behalf of the 16
respondents is binding on all these persons and in the
event they raise any controversy whatsoever with regard to
the said affidavit, they may not be ultimately considered
for appointment or, if appointed, may not be permitted to
continue in service.
23. We have endeavoured to solve the long drawn out lis
between the parties by this order in exercise of our jurisdiction
and powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In
17
view of the same, we observe that -
(a) there shall be no further lis with regard to the 2006
recruitment initiated by the respondent/State Government.
(b) We further observe that the interim order dated 30.08.2022
shall be limited to the facts and circumstances of this case
only.
(c) Since the lis between the parties is being given a quietus, no
further representation or other petitions shall be considered
by the State on par with these 16 persons with regard to the
recruitment in question.
24. One reason for accepting the affidavit filed by the
respondents on behalf of only 16 respondents is that they have
pursued the litigation before the Tribunal, before the High Court
as well as before this Court initially as applicants and thereafter
as successful respondents.
25. Out of the 16 persons, the following persons are present
before this Court and they state that all 16 persons would abide
by their undertakings –
18
1. K. Yogendra
2. Hareesh B K
3. Arun Surendra Patil
4. B.N Shivananjegowda
5. Kamble Satish Kumar
6. Raghunandan A R
7. Venkatesh Waddar
26. In the result, we issue the following directions:
(i) The original applications filed before the Tribunal are
dismissed as withdrawn.
(ii) Consequently, the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal as well as the impugned order passed by the
High Court in the writ petitions pale into insignificance
and are consequently set aside.
(iii) The respondent(s)/State shall issue the requisite
appointment orders to the following 16 persons only on
or before 31.03.2026:
Sl. No. Respondent Name
1. H. G. Somashekara
2. Maralinagappa K
3. Venugopal
4. Veerabhadrappa Harihar
5. Kumar H M
6. K. Yogendra
7. Hareesh B K
8. Anand. K. C
19
Sl. No. Respondent Name
9. Rajesh K
10. Arun Surendra Patil
11. Shashi Kumar E
12. B.N Shivananjegowda
13. Kamble Satish Kumar
14. Raghunandan A R
15. Siddaramaiah
16. Venkatesh Waddar
(iv) We observe that no further representation or petition
shall be filed by any of the parties in respect of 2006
recruitment.
(v) Further, the 105 appellants + 33 appellants who have
been continued in appointment or appointed pursuant to
interim orders dated 04.12.2014 and 30.08.2022 passed
by this Court shall also not be disturbed.
27. These appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms in
exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India. Hence, this order shall not be treated as a precedent
in any other case.
Consequently, the contempt petitions and applications for
condonation of delay in filing contempt petitions, if any,
stand disposed of.
20
All pending applications including the applications for
intervention/impleadment/addition/deletion/modification of
parties stand disposed of.
28. We place on record our sincere appreciation of the
assistance rendered by Mr. Aman Panwar, learned AAG for
the State of Karnataka and Ms. Thashmitha Muthanna,
learned counsel for the KPSC to this Court as well as learned
senior counsel and learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
……………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
……………………………………J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 26, 2026.
21