Case at a Glance
Karnataka’s 2011 recruitment for 362 Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ gazetted probationer posts was cancelled in 2014 after a CID inquiry found corruption and nepotism involving KPSC officials, and the cancellation was upheld up to the Supreme Court. In 2022 the State enacted a law to validate the selection and appointments. The Supreme Court held that Act unconstitutional, saying a legislature cannot simply annul final judicial decisions, and that the appointments made under it come to an end. It directed fresh recruitment for the vacant posts, with a one-time age relaxation for untainted appointees, the appellants and certain other candidates.
On 3 November 2011 the State notified 362 Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997. Of 1,38,307 applicants, 91,667 sat the preliminary examination, 6,211 qualified for the mains and 1,090 were called for interview. In 2013, on the Advocate General’s advice, the State withheld the final list pending a CID inquiry, which found corruption and nepotism involving KPSC officials. The selection list was cancelled on 21 March 2014. Material noted by the High Court included call records between candidates and KPSC members, identical interview marks for at least 566 candidates and replacement of the KPSC’s digital video recorder.
The cancellation was upheld by the High Court, and the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge in Avinash C. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3543–3555 of 2018). Attempts to resume the process from the results stage also failed. The State then enacted the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022. A PIL and a writ petition challenging it were dismissed by the High Court; the writ petition was dismissed on 21 April 2022 by what the Supreme Court called a cryptic order. Of the 362 selected, 46 were found tainted; 191 were appointed, of whom 14 are tainted.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a State legislature validate a recruitment process whose cancellation for corruption has been upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and what happens to appointments made under such a law?
Making Law Versus Overruling Courts
Relying on Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala, (2018) 09 SC CK 0096, (2019) 13 SCC 185, Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara v. Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd., (1970) 02 SC CK 0027, (1970) 1 SCC 509, In re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, (1991) 11 SC CK 0050, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 96, and S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala, (2015) 02 SC CK 0061, (2015) 4 SCC 400, the Court reiterated that a legislature may retrospectively change the legal basis on which a judgment rests, but cannot directly set aside a final decision between parties. It observed that “the legislative function consists of making law and not declaring what the law shall be,” and found that the 2022 Act did exactly what is forbidden: it annulled the effect of judgments upholding the cancellation. Reliance in the Statement of Objects and Reasons on Taylor v. Taylor did not help. The Court concluded: “We have no doubt in our minds that the subject legislation is unconstitutional.”
The Court rejected pleas of equity for the selected candidates: “There could be no equity, insofar as the selected candidates are concerned.” Because the entire selection had been cancelled, there was no room to separate tainted from untainted candidates, and the appointments existed only because of the invalid Act. It also recorded “a little bit of surprise and a lot more alarm” at how the PIL and writ petition had been dealt with. Given the lapse of about fifteen years, it declined to restart the old process and instead moulded relief through fresh recruitment.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 is unconstitutional and set aside, along with the High Court judgments in the PIL and writ petition; the PIL is allowed with the appellants transposed as petitioners.
- Appointments made pursuant to the tainted 2011 recruitment will come to an end.
- The State must notify recruitment for the vacant Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts under the existing rules, with a one-time age relaxation for the untainted appointees, the six appellants and petitioners in the pending KAT proceedings.
- Those selected get seniority only from the fresh appointment, with no back wages or notional dates; for serving employees who are reselected, earlier service counts for pension and retirement benefits.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is a strong restatement of separation of powers: legislatures cannot use validation laws to override final court judgments.
- It affects about 191 serving officers of Karnataka’s 2011 gazetted probationer batch and thousands of aspirants.
- It signals that equity will not protect appointments flowing from a recruitment process cancelled for corruption.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Candidates and Appointees
- Watch for the State’s fresh notification for Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts.
- Untainted appointees, the appellants and KAT petitioners get a one-time age relaxation.
- Reselected serving employees keep earlier service for pension, but seniority runs from the fresh appointment.
For Counsel
- Validation statutes must cure the defect identified by the court, not simply nullify the judgment.
- Cite Srinivasa T., (2026) 10 SC CK 4150 with S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala and Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala on legislative overreach.
- In mass-recruitment fraud, segregation arguments may fail where the whole process was cancelled.
Key Takeaways
- 2022 Karnataka validation Act struck down.
- Appointments under the tainted 2011 recruitment come to an end.
- Fresh recruitment with one-time age relaxation for specified candidates.
- No back wages or notional seniority; earlier service counts for pension if reselected.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the 2011 recruitment cancelled?
A CID inquiry found corruption and nepotism involving KPSC officials; the cancellation of 21 March 2014 was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Who gets age relaxation in the fresh recruitment?
As a one-time measure, the untainted appointees, the six appellants and the petitioners in the pending KAT proceedings, along with other eligible candidates under the rules.
Did the Court fix a deadline for the fresh recruitment?
The judgment, as read, sets no specific timeline for the fresh notification.
Conclusion
Srinivasa T. closes a fifteen-year saga by holding that what the courts had finally cancelled could not be revived by legislation. The relief is pragmatic, a fresh recruitment with protections for the untainted, but the principle is firm.
Practical takeaway: A validation law that merely annuls a final judgment, without curing the underlying defect, will not survive judicial review.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com