Karnataka HC Orders Junior Training Officer Appointments From Both Original And Revised Lists, Subject To Pending Challenges

The petitions concerned recruitment to 1,520 Junior Training Officer posts under the KPSC notification dated 19 February 2018.

Candidates challenged their exclusion from selection on the ground that their experience certificates did not specify the relevant trade, although the prescribed certificate format did not require that information.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) granted relief in several applications, including by directing modification of the certificate format and reconsideration of candidates’ eligibility.

The High Court subsequently directed the State and KPSC to redo the selection exercise using the documents originally submitted, with liberty to seek employer clarifications, and to place the revised merit list before the Court.

The Supreme Court later permitted publication of the revised list and appointments, while directing that already-appointed candidates not be disturbed pending final disposal of the writ petitions.

The State ultimately proposed accommodating candidates from both the original and revised lists against available vacancies.

The petitions invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The recruitment was governed by the applicable Cadre and Recruitment Rules, including the Karnataka Employment and Training Services (Craftsman and Apprenticeship Training) (Recruitment) Rules, 1998; the KPSC stated that eligibility turned on experience in the relevant field, while the prescribed certificate format did not require candidates to identify a particular trade.

Rule 6(3)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 was referred to in the Tribunal’s order.

The High Court’s earlier interim directions required reconsideration on the basis of documents submitted with the applications, with employer clarifications permitted.

The Supreme Court’s order of 17 December 2024 permitted publication of the revised list and appointments, but protected candidates already working until final disposal and made all appointments subject to the writ petitions’ outcome.

In addressing non-joinder of selected candidates, the Court referred to Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh for the principle that, in a challenge to an allegedly arbitrary or illegal selection process affecting a large number of candidates, impleading every selected candidate may not be necessary.

The Court recounted that the prescribed experience-certificate format did not ask candidates to identify their trade, yet some applications had been rejected for failing to provide that information; the State and KPSC had also acknowledged problems with the certificate format and verification process.

The Court had therefore directed a fresh assessment based on the original application documents and permitted clarification from employers, rather than requiring new experience certificates.

At final disposal, however, the Court did not determine the individual merits of the competing selection lists. It accepted the State’s proposal to accommodate candidates from both lists against unfilled, non-reported, or other available vacancies and directed the KPSC to prepare a common merit list, while preserving the ability to challenge individual selections or appointments.

The State was directed to proceed with appointments without waiting for that list and, as far as possible, not to disturb serving candidates who had not completed their minimum tenure.

The appointments remain subject to other pending litigation and to any challenge to an individual selection or appointment; compliance was required within three months.