The Supreme Court has struck down the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022, holding that the legislature cannot nullify judicial decisions cancelling a recruitment process vitiated by corruption and nepotism.
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran consequently ruled that appointments made under the legislation must also come to an end. However, it directed the Karnataka Government to conduct fresh recruitment for existing vacancies in Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ services, with a one-time age relaxation for specified candidates affected by the prolonged litigation.
Buy Now: 160+ GST E-Magazine September 2026
The bench observed that the recruitment initiated in 2011 had remained unresolved for nearly a decade and a half, jeopardising the aspirations of candidates who had since crossed the prescribed age limit.
The dispute originated from a notification issued on November 3, 2011, for recruitment to 362 posts of Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ officers under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997.
A total of 1,38,307 candidates applied, of whom 91,667 appeared for the preliminary examination. Subsequently, 6,211 candidates appeared for the main examination and 1,090 were called for interviews.
In 2013, following complaints about illegalities in the selection process and advice from the Advocate General, the State Government withheld publication of the final select list and referred the matter to the State CID.
The inquiry revealed gross manipulation of the recruitment process, including corruption and nepotism involving officials of the Karnataka Public Service Commission. The State Government consequently cancelled the entire recruitment.
Selected candidates initially challenged the cancellation before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the government’s decision. However, public interest petitions filed before the Karnataka High Court by aggrieved candidates, including the present appellants, succeeded.
The High Court upheld the cancellation, and the Supreme Court declined to interfere in the earlier proceedings in Avinash C. and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others.
Recounting the findings considered during that litigation, the present judgment referred to call records between candidates and KPSC members, identical interview marks awarded to at least 566 candidates, and replacement of the digital video recorder in the KPSC building to destroy evidence.
The Court noted that the earlier proceedings had rejected an attempt to separate allegedly tainted candidates from others because the selection process itself stood compromised.
Although liberty had been granted to approach the High Court on whether recruitment could resume from the interview stage, that request was also rejected. The High Court found serious irregularities in the evaluation of answer scripts, and subsequent challenges before the Supreme Court were unsuccessful.
Despite these judicial decisions, Karnataka enacted the 2022 law to validate the selection and appointments of the 2011 batch of gazetted probationers.
The legislation sought to justify relief for selected candidates on the basis that they were not responsible for the irregularities and had not been arrayed as accused in the CID chargesheet, which named officials and middlemen.
The Supreme Court recorded that, out of the 362 selected candidates, 46 had been found tainted. Appointments were given to 191 candidates under the 2022 Act, including 14 who had been found tainted.
Candidates who had continued to contest the recruitment challenged the legislation before the Tribunal. A separate public interest petition questioning the Act was dismissed by the High Court on April 21, 2022. The Tribunal subsequently declined interim relief, and the High Court rejected the challenge to that refusal on August 23, 2022.
The Supreme Court considered appeals arising from both High Court orders.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the appellants, argued that the legislation effectively nullified binding judicial decisions. He submitted that a validating law can operate only when it removes the legal defect identified by a constitutional court; it cannot place the legislature in appeal over a judgment.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Karnataka, candidly submitted that the legislation could not be supported.
Counsel representing selected candidates sought to sustain the legislation and urged the Court to protect their appointments on equitable grounds.
The Bench rejected that plea, explaining that the recruitment had been invalidated because corruption and nepotism had vitiated the entire selection, rather than because of a curable procedural defect.
The Supreme Court reiterated the distinction between a permissible validating law and an impermissible legislative attempt to overturn a final judicial decision.
A legislature may, within constitutional limits, amend the law retrospectively and remove the defect on which a judgment rests. It cannot simply annul the judgment or restore an action already invalidated by the courts without addressing its underlying basis.
The Bench relied on Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala, concerning an attempt to regularise medical admissions that had already been held illegal.
It also referred to Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara v. Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd., In re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala on the limits of legislative power to override judicial decisions.
Applying those principles, the Court held that Karnataka lacked the power to legislatively annul the cancellation of recruitment after that cancellation had been upheld by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The stated objective of relieving hardship to selected candidates could not sustain a law reviving a recruitment judicially found to be tainted.
Candidates who had not been found tainted argued that none of the selected candidates had been named as accused in the FIR or chargesheet. They also relied on the High Court having set aside the cognizance taken by the Special Court.
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution not resulting in a trial did not justify continuation of appointments founded on the unconstitutional legislation.
It also rejected the argument that the State’s changed position now permitted retention of candidates who were not individually implicated. Since the entire selection had already been cancelled, the Court found no scope to reopen the question of segregating tainted and untainted candidates on the basis of the CID report.
The Bench expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the High Court had dealt with the challenge to the legislation.
It observed that the public interest petition had been dealt with cursorily and that the later writ petition had received similar treatment despite the constitutional limits on the legislature’s powers.
The Court also clarified that a public interest litigant cannot insist on withdrawing proceedings as a matter of personal control over the case without the court’s permission. Where a constitutional court finds substance in a public interest challenge, it may examine the issue despite inadequate prosecution by the original petitioner.
The Bench allowed the public interest petition by transposing the present appellants as petitioners and set aside the impugned High Court judgments.
Having declared the 2022 Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court held that appointments made pursuant to the tainted recruitment would also end.
However, the passage of nearly 15 years persuaded the Bench against resuming the old selection process from the stage after the preliminary examination.
Instead, it directed Karnataka to notify fresh recruitment for vacancies presently existing in Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ services under the recruitment rules currently in force.
The Court granted a one-time opportunity, with age relaxation, to the appointed candidates who had not been found tainted, the six appellants, and the petitioners in the pending proceedings before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. They would compete alongside other candidates currently eligible for recruitment.
The Supreme Court clarified that candidates selected in the fresh recruitment would receive seniority only from the date of their new appointment. They would have no entitlement to back wages or notional appointment from an earlier date.
The same condition would apply to persons currently serving under the invalidated recruitment if they succeeded in the fresh selection.
However, the Bench provided limited protection for retirement benefits: if those presently working were selected and appointed afresh, their earlier period of service would count towards computation of pension and retirement benefits.
The appeals were allowed with these directions. Applications seeking impleadment and intervention were rejected.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
