Supreme Court exercises Article 142 powers to settle decadal recruitment dispute through mediated appointment of original litigants.

In August 2006, the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) advertised 145 posts for Motor Vehicle Inspectors.

After the selection process, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT), in May 2010, quashed the recruitment notification and the appointments made thereunder.

The KAT found the notification's eligibility criteria inconsistent with the Central Government’s 1989 Notification issued under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically regarding the one-year workshop experience requirement.

The Karnataka High Court upheld the KAT’s decision in September 2014.

The State and the appointed candidates appealed to the Supreme Court, which stayed the removal of the appointees in December 2014, allowing them to continue in service for over a decade.

Whether a long-standing recruitment dispute involving over 130 working officials and several original challengers can be resolved through a court-monitored settlement.

Whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary powers to provide a quietus to the litigation by accommodating the original litigants while protecting the service of existing appointees.

The Court primarily exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties.

It adhered to the statutory qualifications for Motor Vehicle Inspectors prescribed by the Central Government under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court also applied the principle of judicial settlement, where the withdrawal of the underlying lis (the original applications before the Tribunal) renders the impugned lower court orders "pale into insignificance".

The Court noted that the litigation had persisted for nearly 20 years and that the 105+33 appointed candidates had not only continued in service under interim orders but had also completed probation and earned promotions.

Rather than adjudicating the technical merits of the 2006 notification, the Court accepted a proposal where the 16 original challengers (respondents) agreed to withdraw their original applications before the KAT.

By withdrawing the applications, the legal basis for the KAT and High Court orders quashing the recruitment was removed.

To balance equities, the Court directed the State to appoint these 16 respondents—who had pursued the litigation for two decades—subject to their meeting eligibility criteria and accepting bottom seniority and no back-wages.

This approach protected the existing workforce while providing relief to the persistent litigants.

The Court directed that: (i) the 105+33 existing appointees shall not be disturbed and their appointments are made absolute; (ii) the 16 identified respondents shall be appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors by March 31, 2026, with necessary age relaxation; (iii) these 16 persons shall be placed at the bottom of the current seniority list and receive no back-wages or past service benefits; and (iv) no further litigation regarding the 2006 recruitment shall be entertained.

The appeals were disposed of under Article 142, clarifying that this order shall not serve as a precedent.