Legislature Cannot Nullify Judgments Of Constitutional Courts: Supreme Court Strikes Down Karnataka Validation Act For 2011 KPSC Recruitment
The Bench held Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 unconstitutional; appointments under it come to an end.
Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that a legislature cannot annul a cancellation of a recruitment that the High Court and the Supreme Court have upheld, and thereby nullify their judgments. It held that the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 did exactly that and is unconstitutional.
Setting aside the Act and the High Court orders that had upheld it, the Court held that appointments made under it will also come to an end. It directed the State to notify recruitment for the vacant Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts under the existing rules, with a one-time age relaxation for the six appellants, the petitioners in the pending proceedings before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, and the appointed candidates not found tainted. It laid down protections on seniority, back wages and pension.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “…there is nothing stated as to the irregular manner in which the cancellation was made and in any event the cancellation having been upheld by the High Court and this Court, the power does not lie with the legislature to annul the cancellation, even by a legislation and thus nullify the judgments of the Constitutional Courts. The lofty ideal stated in the legislation of providing justice to the 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers falls flat for reason of the recruitment itself having been found tainted with corruption and nepotism by the High Court, which decision was upheld by this Court in a Civil Appeal”.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the appellants and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the respondent.
The Bench rejected the argument for segregating untainted candidates, since the entire selection had been cancelled.“…It is trite that a public interest litigant cannot move for withdrawal of the petition on the principle of dominus litis, without the leave of the Court. In the present case, what comes to fore is an attempt by an unconnected individual to stultify a valid challenge to the notification. We cannot but record, a little bit of surprise and a lot more alarm, insofar as the impugned judgments are concerned. The PIL was cursorily dealt with, and the later Writ Petition was also dealt with in a similar manner, throwing to winds every tenet of law; upholding an enactment clearly beyond the scope of the powers conferred on the law-making authority and bordering on the absurd”, the Bench said.
On November 3, 2011, the State notified recruitment to 362 Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997. In 2013, on the Advocate General’s advice, the State withheld the final select list pending a CID inquiry. The inquiry revealed manipulation, corruption and nepotism by officials of the Karnataka Public Service Commission, and the recruitment was cancelled.
The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal quashed the cancellation, but the High Court, in public interest petitions, affirmed it. This Court dismissed the special leave petitions in Avinash C. v. State of Karnataka, noting that 566 candidates received identical interview marks and that the Commission’s digital video recorder had been replaced to destroy evidence. A later High Court order refused to resume the process from the written examination stage, and challenges to it failed. The 2022 Act was then enacted to validate the selection.
The appellants challenged it before the Tribunal, while a separate writ petition against the Act was dismissed by the High Court on April 21, 2022, and the Tribunal’s refusal of interim relief was upheld on August 23, 2022. Of the 362 candidates selected, 46 were found tainted. Appointments were given to 191, of whom 14 are tainted.
The State’s counsel candidly submitted that the legislation could not be supported. The Court held that the recruitment was set aside for rampant corruption and blatant nepotism, so no equity lay with the selected candidates, whose appointments rested on a stillborn Act.
The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Act and the impugned judgments. It allowed the public interest petition, transposing the appellants as petitioners. Given the passage of a decade and a half, it did not resume the old selection. It directed fresh recruitment for the vacant posts, with seniority only from the date of fresh appointment and no back wages or notional appointment. Those now serving who are reselected will have their earlier service counted for pension and retirement benefits. It rejected the impleadment and intervention applications.
Cause Title: Srinivasa T. & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. etc. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1173)
Appearances:
Appellants: Shyam Divan, Senior Counsel.
Respondents: Kapil Sibal, Senior Counsel, C.A. Sundram and Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Senior Counsel.