Recruiting commissions must verify prescribed qualifications before shortlisting candidates for interview.

The KPSC invited applications for Assistant Professor of Ayurveda (Kayachikitsa), with selection based on written-examination and interview marks. The recruitment process required candidates to be called for interview in a 1:3 ratio. The applicant before the Tribunal scored 173 marks in the written examination; the candidate initially selected scored 174.

The KPSC’s interview list included three candidates, but two did not possess the required postgraduate qualification in Kayachikitsa. Only the initially selected candidate was interviewed, and the KPSC published a final select list on 30 July 2022.

The Tribunal set aside that selection and directed the KPSC to prepare a fresh 1:3 interview list and conduct interviews afresh.

Following the Tribunal’s order, the applicant and the initially selected candidate were interviewed; the applicant was selected and appointed under the revised list dated 14 May 2024. The writ petition challenged the Tribunal’s order and, by amendment, the revised select list.

The Court applied Rule 7(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examinations & Selections) (General) Rules, 2006. It read the rule’s requirement that the Commission scrutinize applications and enclosures as requiring an initial review sufficient to determine whether candidates possess the prescribed qualifications and satisfy claimed reservation categories before they are included in the interview list.

The provision also permits scrutiny of documents against originals at the interview stage, if necessary; that later verification does not displace the initial scrutiny obligation.

The recruitment notification required the interview list to be prepared in a 1:3 ratio based on written-examination marks.

No judicial precedent was relied upon.

The KPSC’s initial list included two candidates who lacked the required Kayachikitsa qualification. The Court held that including ineligible candidates and removing them only at interview undermined the prescribed 1:3 process and could deprive other eligible candidates of an opportunity to compete.

Because only one candidate was interviewed under the defective list, the original interview and resulting selection could not be retained. The later interview conducted using a properly prepared list therefore prevailed, and the marks awarded in the first interview could not be carried forward.

The initially selected candidate could not rely on the KPSC’s error to claim selection or appointment.

It declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s order and rejected the writ petition.