To Give Quietus To Long-Drawn Controversy: Supreme Court Orders Appointment Of 16 Candidates In 2006 KPSC Recruitment

The bench emphasised that the endeavour was intended to bring a “quietus” to the long-drawn controversy, and therefore exercised its powers under Article 142 to craft an equitable solution acceptable to all parties. It also clarified that the order would not be treated as a precedent in future cases.

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan accepted an amicable proposal placed before the Court, under which the original applicants agreed to withdraw their challenges to the recruitment process if the State government appointed 16 identified candidates as Motor Vehicle Inspectors with age relaxation and without disturbing the existing appointments.

The Bench clarified, “One reason for accepting the affidavit filed by the respondents on behalf of only 16 respondents is that they have pursued the litigation before the Tribunal, before the High Court as well as before this Court initially as applicants and thereafter as successful respondents”.

“We have perused the affidavit as well as the prayers made by the 16 respondents in the affidavit. We find that the 16 respondents have decided to withdraw their original applications which they had filed before the Tribunal. Consequently, they have no claim whatsoever against the appointed candidates, namely, 105+33 (pursuant to the interim orders of this Court); that these 16 persons would not claim any seniority at par with the appellants and they are ready and willing to be placed last in the seniority list having regard to the fact that there have been subsequent recruitments made to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. They would also not claim any monetary benefit whatsoever except from the date on which they are to be appointed and in accordance with law”, the Bench noted.

Senior Advocates Vinay Navare, Gautam Narayan, S. Nandakumar, Anitha Shenoy, Aditya Sondhi, Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Naveen R. Nath appeared for the appellants and Senior Advocates Shekhar G. Devasa, H. Subramhanya Jois, Shoeb Alam, R. Veeraraghavan appeared for the respondents.

The dispute in the matter was a result of a notification dated 18-08-2006 issued by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) advertising 145 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector.

Several candidates had challenged the recruitment before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, arguing that the notification did not comply with qualification requirements prescribed by the Central Government under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal accepted the challenge and quashed the notification and appointments, a decision later upheld by the High Court.

However, the Supreme Court had earlier granted interim protection to the selected candidates, allowing them to continue in service while the appeals were pending. Many of these appointees had since completed probation and some had even been promoted to the post of Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector.

Therefore, taking note of the prolonged litigation and the practical consequences of invalidating appointments made nearly two decades earlier, the Court opted for a settlement-based resolution. It permitted the original applicants to withdraw their cases, thereby rendering the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court ineffective.

At the same time, the Court directed the Karnataka government to issue appointment orders to 16 identified candidates by 31-03-2026, subject to their eligibility and possession of a valid driving licence. The Court clarified that these candidates would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list and would not claim back wages, seniority parity, or benefits for the past period.

Cause Title: S G Jamaludheen Etc v. State Of Karnataka And Ors Etc. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 235]

Appearances:

Appellants: Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Rekha Palli, Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv., Asmita Singh, Abhishek Bharati, Lakshmisha B. S., Vagisha Kochar, AOR, V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, S. Nandakumar, Sr. Adv., Deepika Nandakumar, Kanimozhi J., Naresh Kumar, AOR, Gautam Talukdar, AOR, Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv., K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR, Sadhana Madhavan, Kavana Rao, Pritama, Sufyan Hasan, Hema Malik, Shaivani, Sunita, Bipin Vinayak Chandan, Vishak Hegde, Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv., Anubhav Kumar, Aman Choudhary, Sorokhaibam Shanti Jyoti Singh, Jayasheela Y. J., Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR, Kumar Parimal, Smarhar Singh, AOR, Shweta Kumari, Rajesh Kumar, Mohd Asim, Pankaj Prakash, Manoj Kumar, Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Sr. Adv., M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR, Suraj Kaushik, Dharam Singh, Anup Jain, AOR, Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, AOR, Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv., Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR, Rahul Jain, Lalit Mohini Bhat, Aditya Nath, Vishak Hegde, Siddarth Aggarwal, Anirudh Bhat, Kanak Wathwal, Archit Upadhayay, AOR, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR, Advocates.

Respondents: Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR, R. V. Kameshwaran, AOR, H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR, Harish Pandey, AOR, Aman Panwar, A.A.G., Sanchit Garga, AOR, Kunal Rana, Shashwat Jaiswal, Abhinav Kumar, Manav Kaushik, V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, Shekhar G. Devasa, Sr. Adv., M/s Devasa & Co., AOR, Manish Tiwari, Thashmitha Muthanna, Rakesh Kini, Shashi Bhushan Nagar, H. Subramhanya Jois, Sr. Adv., Pooja, Ravi Shanker Jha, Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR, Divya Sharma, Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv., R. Veeraraghavan, Sr. Adv., Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Vani Vyas, Thanuja V., Prakhar Singh, Khalid, Manish Kumar Gupta, AOR, Vagisha Kochar, AOR, Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR, Sughosh Subramanyam, Sanskruti Samal, Chaitanya, AOR, Kartik Pant, Amit Pai, AOR, Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Tathagata Dutta, Gopi Kishan, Sudhanshu Prakash, AOR, Advocates.