DR. ANNAPOORNA. S vs THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

- 1 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND


THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 22733 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)


BETWEEN:

DR. ANNAPOORNA. S
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/A NO.49/1, SRI NILAYA,
PARLADKA CROSS ROAD,
DARBE, PUTTUR
DAKSHINA KANNADA-575202.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADV.)


AND:

1. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION
UDYOGA SOUDHA,
DEVARAJ URS ROAD,
NEAR VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
(AYUSH DEPARTMENT)
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.

3. THE COMMISSIONERATE OF AYUSH
DEPARTMENT OF AYURVEDA
YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI,
SIDDHA AND HOMEOPATHY












Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
DHANWANTRI ROAD
BENGALURU-560009.

4. DR. THRAPTHI ADIGA
W/O DR. SRINATH BHAY Y
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
KAYACHIKITSA ON CONTRACT BASIS,
GOVT. AYURVEDIC COLLEGE,
BENGALURU.

R/AT NO.141/A, KANASU,
TH
8 CROSS ROAD,
RAMDAS LAYOUT,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560098.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAKASH K. M., ADV. FOR R1
SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2 & 3
SRI V.R. SARATHY, ADV. FOR C/R4)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2023 PASSED BY
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN
APPLICATION NO.5479/2022 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND II. ISSUE
SUCH OTHER WRITS/ORDERS/DIRECTIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 16.09.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY , S.G.PANDIT J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

- 3 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Respondent No.4 before the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”)
is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated
21.09.2023 in Application No.5479/2022 allowing the
application of respondent No.4 herein quashing the
impugned select list of Assistant Professor, Ayurveda
(Kayachikitsa) dated 30.07.2022 (Annexure-A7) and
further directing respondent-Karnataka Public Service
Commission (for short “KPSC”) to prepare fresh list in the
ratio of 1:3 in the order of merit in the written competitive
examination and also to include the petitioner herein and
to proceed to conduct personality test afresh and
determine the select list both provisional and final afresh.

2. By way of amendment, the petitioner had also
challenged subsequent revised final select list in pursuance
of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal i.e.,
Notification publishing revised final select list dated
14.05.2024, selecting respondent No.4 herein for the post

- 4 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


of Assistant Professor, Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa) under GM-
Woman category under residual parent cadre.

3. The parties to the present proceedings would be
referred to as they stood before the Tribunal. The
petitioner herein was respondent No.4 and respondent
No.4 herein was applicant before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the first
respondent – KPSC by a notification dated 30.07.2020
(Annexure-A1) called applications from the eligible
candidates to fill up various posts including that of Assistant
Professor of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa), Group-B post. The
last date for submitting applications was 04.09.2020. There
were two posts of Assistant Professor of Ayurveda
(Kayachikitsa), one for residual local cadre and one post to
Hyderabad-Karnataka. One post under residual parent
cadre was earmarked for GM-Women. The selection and
appointment was through the marks obtained in the
competitive examination as well as interview. The
qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor
of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa) reads as follows:

- 5 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


“1) Must possess a Bachelor Degree in Ayurveda
& Post Graduate Degree in Kayachikitsa
awarded by an University established by Law
in India & included in the II Schedule to
Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970
(Central Act 48 of 1970)

2) Must have not less than five years of teaching
experience in Kayachikitsa in an Institution
recognized by the Government.”

The basic qualification for the post of Assistant Professor
of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa) was a Bachelor Degree in
Ayurveda and Post Graduate Degree in Khaya Chikitsa
awarded by an University established by law in India.

5. The notification calling applications also makes
it clear that apart from pass in compulsory Kannada
language examination, eligibility list in the ratio of 1:3 is
to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the
competitive examination for interview. It is submitted that
the applicant obtained 173 marks in the competitive
examination whereas the fourth respondent obtained 174
marks in the written competitive examination. However,
the first respondent – KPSC prepared eligibility list for

- 6 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


interview on 1:3 ratio, in terms of Annexure-A3. Under
Annexure-A3, the eligibility list of Assistant Professor of
Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa) for interview included the name
of fourth respondent as well as another two candidates
i.e., Smt.Thejaswini and Smt.Kavyashree.K. The fourth
respondent as well as two others were called for interview
and on the date of interview, it was found that out of the
three candidates called for interview, except fourth
respondent, other two candidates were not qualified for
the post of Assistant Professor of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa),
since they had no requisite qualification of Post Graduation
in the subject of Kayachikitsa. Therefore, only the fourth
respondent was interviewed and the first respondent
published the provisional select list dated 03.06.2022
(Annexure-A5). Under the provisional select list dated
03.06.2022, the fourth respondent was provisionally
selected as Assistant Professor of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa).
However, the applicant filed objections dated 06.06.2022
to the said provisional select list objecting that the
eligibility list contained two ineligible candidates as such,

- 7 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


the eligible candidates lost opportunity and sought
opportunity in the selection process. Without considering
the objections, the first respondent published final select
list dated 30.07.2022 selecting the fourth respondent to
the post of Assistant Professor of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa),
which indicated the total marks of fourth respondent as
214 including the marks obtained in the interview.
Thereafter, the applicant was issued with endorsement
dated Nil./10.2022 (Annexure-A9) stating that the
selection process is conducted in accordance with the
Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by
Competitive Examinations & Selections) (General) Rules,
2006 (for short, ‘Rules, 2006’).

6. Questioning the said endorsement as well as
selection of fourth respondent, the applicant was before
the Tribunal with a further prayer to include the name of
applicant in the merit list and to hold interview once again
by following the procedure prescribed under Rules 6 and 7
of the Rules, 2006 for the post of Assistant Professor of
Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa) and to grant all other

- 8 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


consequential reliefs. The Tribunal under impugned order,
set aside the selection of fourth respondent and further
directed to prepare fresh list in the ratio of 1:3 in the
order of merit in the written competitive examination
including the fourth respondent and proceed to conduct
personality test afresh. The Tribunal further observed that
once the KPSC found that the candidates short-listed for
interview are ineligible, it was necessary for KPSC to
revise the eligibility list for interview/personality test to
comprise of the eligible candidates. Questioning the said
order, the fourth respondent before the Tribunal is before
this Court in this writ petition.

7. On filing of the above writ petition, no interim
order was granted and the KPSC proceeded with the
selection process as directed by the Tribunal. The KPSC
prepared fresh eligibility list for interview which comprised
the name of the applicant, respondent No.4 and one
another. The interview was conducted and the provisional
and final select list dated 14.05.2024 was published,
whereunder the applicant was selected as Assistant

- 9 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


Professor of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa). Thereafter, the
applicant was also appointed as Assistant Professor of
Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa). On selection and appointment of
the applicant as Assistant Professor of Ayurveda
(Kayachikitsa), respondent No.4 filed amendment
application in the present writ petition to include the
prayer to quash the final select list dated 14.05.2024
(Annexure-AH), the selection of applicant to the post of
Assistant Professor of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa).

8. Heard learned counsel Sri.M.K.Prithveesh for
petitioner, learned counsel Sri.K.M.Prakash for respondent
No.1 – KPSC, learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondent Nos.2 and 3 as well as
learned counsel Sri.V.R.Sarathy for respondent No.4.
Perused the entire writ petition papers.

9. Learned counsel Sri.M.K.Prithveesh for
petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed
by the Tribunal quashing the final selection list of Assistant
Professor of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa) in respect of
respondent No.4 is opposed to the material on record and

- 10 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


opposed to the settled position of selection procedure.
Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner had
scored 174 marks, more than the marks obtained by the
applicant. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have
interfered with the final select list. It is submitted that
Rules, 2006 requires calling of candidates for interview in
1:3 ratio based on the marks obtained in the competitive
examination. It is submitted that 1:3 ratio list was
prepared, wherein respondent No.4 was placed at Sl.No.3
and she was interviewed. Based on the marks obtained in
the written examination and interview, respondent No.4
was selected as Assistant Professor of Ayurveda
(Kayachikitsa).

10. Further, learned counsel would point out that in
terms of Rule 7(2) of Rules, 2006, eligibility of a candidate
shall be verified only at the time of interview and not prior
to that. Learned counsel would submit that the documents
ought to be verified at the interview only and not at the
time of short-listing the candidates for interview.
Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal’s observation

- 11 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


that short-listing of candidate or the eligibility list for
interview would not contain names of eligible candidates,
is contrary to Rules 7(2) of Rules, 2006. Learned counsel
would submit that the Tribunal’s observation that the
eligibility list or interview list contained candidates who are
not eligible is not correct. Their eligibility or qualification
could be verified only at the time of interview and at the
time of preparing the final select list. The candidates who
appeared at the first instance in the eligibility or interview
list had scored more marks than the applicant. As such,
the Tribunal is not justified in finding fault with the
eligibility or interview list.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further
submit that at the first instance of interview, respondent
No.4 had secured 40 marks and whereas in pursuance to
the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, interview was
conducted and she had been awarded only 30 marks. If
the marks awarded to respondent No.4 in the first
interview is taken, she would be more meritorious than
the applicant. Alternatively, learned counsel for the

- 12 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


petitioner would submit that for no fault of respondent
No.4, her selection and appointment is quashed. Learned
counsel would submit that if at all there is a mistake, it is
a mistake of the first respondent – KPSC. For the mistake
of the KPSC, selection of the fourth respondent is quashed.
Therefore, he submits that as there are vacancies of
Assistant Professor of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa), he prays
for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of
the fourth respondent also for selection and appointment
as Assistant Professor of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa). Thus,
learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition.

12. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.K.M.Prakash for
first respondent – KPSC would submit that in pursuance to
the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the first
respondent – KPSC conducted interview by preparing a
fresh eligibility/interview list wherein the applicant and the
fourth respondent found place in the interview. In the
interview, based on the performance, the applicant was
awarded 40 marks, whereas the fourth respondent was
awarded 30 marks. On the basis of marks obtained in the

- 13 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


written examination and interview, the applicant is
selected in terms of the revised final select list dated
14.05.2024 (Annexure-H). Further, learned counsel for
KPSC would submit that in terms of Rule 7(2) of Rules,
2006, eligibility or verification of documents would be only
at the time of interview and not prior to that. Therefore,
the eligibility list/interview list prepared at the first
instance (Annexure-A3) is proper and in accordance with
law.

13. Learned counsel Sri.V.R.Sarathy for the
applicant would support the order passed by the Tribunal
and further submits that the first respondent-KPSC without
verifying the eligibility of the candidates, included ineligible
or candidates who had no qualification of Kayachikitsa in
the eligibility list/interview list. Based on the illegal
eligibility list, the fourth respondent was interviewed and
selected. Therefore, he submits that the fourth respondent
would not get any right or she cannot contend that she has
more merit than the applicant. Further, learned counsel
would submit that the notification requires uploading of all

- 14 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


the documents along with the application. Therefore,
learned counsel would submit that while preparing the
eligibility/interview list, the obligation is on the first
respondent – KPSC to at-least prima-facie find out the
eligibility with regard to qualification and then to prepare
the eligibility/interview list.

14. Learned counsel for the applicant would further
submit that, before interview, it is not open for the KPSC
to verify the eligibility. He would submit that the
verification of documents in terms of Rule 7(2) of Rules,
2006 is only with regard to genuineness of the documents
and not with regard to eligibility. If a person who is not
eligible cannot be included in the eligibility or interview list
and it cannot be said that the said list which includes
ineligible candidates is proper list. Further, learned counsel
would point out that the candidates have to file an
affidavit with regard to their qualification and other
particulars. The KPSC without looking into the affidavit or
qualification of the candidates, included ineligible
candidates in the eligibility/interview list. Thus, he would

- 15 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


submit that the Tribunal is right in observing that, once
the KPSC found that the candidates short-listed for
interview would not possess the eligibility with regard to
qualification, the KPSC ought to have revised the
eligibility/interview list. Thus, he would pray for dismissal
of the writ petition.

15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on careful consideration of the material on
record, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal for the following reasons:
This case is a classic example of how the KPSC
commits its blunder and by its action, how it puts the
eligible candidates out of the eligibility list or interview list.

16. In terms of notification dated 30.07.2020
(Annexure-A1), both the applicant and respondent No.4
applied for the post of Assistant Professor of Ayurveda
(Kayachikitsa). As noted, the selection was on the basis of
the marks obtained in the written examination as well as
marks obtained in the interview. However, in terms of the

- 16 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


recruitment notification, the candidates for interview shall
be called in the ratio of 1:3 based on the marks obtained in
the written examination and also who have qualified in the
compulsory Kannada language examination. While
preparing the eligibility list of candidates for interview
based on the marks obtained in the written examination, it
shall be the duty and obligation of the first respondent-
KPSC to verify as to whether a candidate who is to be
included in the eligibility/interview list possesses the basic
qualification prescribed for the post. The eligibility with
regard to qualification shall be determined before including
the candidates name in the interview/eligibility list.
Including the ineligible candidate in interview/eligibility list
and verifying his credentials with regard to qualification
before interview and deleting his name from the
eligibility/interview list on the date of interview would affect
the chances of other eligible candidates and it would
deprive the other eligible candidates from participation in
the selection process. The contention of the KPSC that in
terms of Rule 7(2) of Rules, 2006, eligibility could be

- 17 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


verified or determined only at the time of interview is
wholly contrary to the said provision.

17. Rule 7(2) of Rules, 2006 reads as follows:
“7(2) The Commission shall scrutinize the
applications along with the enclosures received and
may call the candidates for the purpose of scrutiny
only at the time of interview, if necessary.”

18. The above rule has two parts. The first part
i.e., “the Commission shall scrutinize the applications
along with enclosures received” would mean that the
Commission shall scrutinize the applications and
enclosures received at the first instance while preparing
the eligibility/interview list. Non-scrutinizing the
applications along with enclosures at the time of preparing
the eligibility/interview list would result in inclusion of
unqualified or ineligible candidates. The second part
requires the Selecting Committee to verify or scrutiny the
enclosures received, such as, marks cards, caste
certificate, etc., and compare the same with originals at
the time of interview, if necessary. The scrutiny or
verification at the first instance would be to find out

- 18 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


whether such candidate would possess the prescribed
qualification or whether he would fall into the claimed
reservation category. In the instant case, there was only
one post of Assistant Professor of Ayurveda
(Kayachikitsa). For one post, in terms of 1:3, three
candidates are to be called for interview. At the first
instance, when the KPSC prepared the eligibility/interview
list, it contained three names including the name of the
fourth respondent. However, except fourth respondent,
other two candidates were ineligible candidates. In that,
they were candidates of other subjects and they were not
of the Kayachikitsa subject. Therefore, the KPSC could not
have included those two persons who had no qualification
of Kayachikitsa in the eligibility/interview list for the post
of Assistant Professor of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa). By
deleting those two names from the eligibility/interview list,
only fourth respondent who remained in the list was
interviewed and selected.

19. When the Rule contemplates that interview
shall be conducted for the candidates in 1:3 ratio, however

- 19 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


contrary to that, only fourth respondent was interviewed.
Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in law in setting aside
the selection of fourth respondent to the post of Assistant
Professor of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa) and in directing fresh
preparation of eligibility/interview list and then to proceed
to interview and appoint.

20. Learned counsel Sri.M.K.Prithveesh for fourth
respondent made his efforts to submit that the marks
obtained by fourth respondent in the first interview shall
be retained while preparing the select list. The said
submission cannot be accepted. The interview of the
fourth respondent was on the basis of illegal
eligibility/interview list. The interview conducted on such
illegal eligibility/interview list cannot be retained. Further,
the interview conducted subsequently based on the
eligibility/interview list prepared in accordance with law
shall prevail.

21. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that for no fault of the fourth respondent and
for the mistake of first respondent – KPSC, selection of

- 20 -
WP No. 22733 of 2023


fourth respondent is quashed. Therefore, as the vacancy
exists, learned counsel requested for consideration of her
case also for selection and appointment as Assistant
Professor of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa). The fourth
respondent is the beneficiary of the illegality committed by
respondent No.1 – KPSC. A person who is the beneficiary
of illegality cannot take advantage of the situation to seek
selection and appointment.

22. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that
there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the
fourth respondent and accordingly writ petition stands
rejected .


Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE



MPK/NC
CT:bms