1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 3543-3555 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 7166-7178 of 2018)

AVINASH C. & ORS.               APPELLANT(S)

             VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.               RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties

who  have  entered  appearance.   Having  regard  to  the

nature of the order proposed, we do not consider it

necessary to issue notice to all the parties who are

not represented.

2. The matter arises out of Selection conducted by

the  Karnataka  Public  Service  Commission  ("KPSC")

pursuant to Notification dated 3.11.2011 for filling up

362 posts of the Group 'A' and Group 'D' in the State

of  Karnataka.   Examinations  were  conducted  on

22.04.2012.  Written  tests  for  mains  were  conducted

between  15.12.2012  and  16.01.2013.  Interviews   were

held between 01-04-2013 and 27.05.2013.

3. There  were  complaints  of  mal-practices  and

irregularities in the conduct of examinations as well

as the interviews. It was inter alia alleged that there

were demands of bribes from candidates. The FIR was

2

lodged against Chairman, Member and some officials of

the KPSC.  On receipt of the interim report of CID

dated 10th September, 2013, the State Government on 15th

December,2013  directed  annulment  of  evaluation  of

written examination as well as the personality test.

The KPSC however, published the select list.  The State

Government withdrew the requisition for appointments on

14.08.2014.

4. The above order was challenged by the successful

candidates  before  the  Karnataka  Administrative

Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 19th October,

2016 quashed the decision of the State Government and

directed appointment of the selected candidates. Some

selected candidates have been given appointments.

5. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before

the High Court.  The High Court by the impugned order

set aside the order of the Tribunal. The High Court

concluded thus:

"55.  Resultantly,  these  writ  petitions eminently  deserve  to  be  allowed  and accordingly:

a) Writ  Petition  Nos.  13617-13627/2017  & 14529/2017 and Writ Petition No. 11342/2017 are allowed;

b) Common order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the  Karnataka  State  Administrative Tribunal,  Bangalore,  in  Applications  No. 6268/2014  to  6395/2014  c/w  6432/2014  to 6444/2014,  6446/2014  to  6459/2014, 6597/2014 & 6598/2014, 7464/2014, 7941/2014 to  7946/2014,  7950/2014  to  7966/2014, 7967/2014, 7968/2014, 7969/2014, 9112/2014 to  9126/2014,  9592/2014  to  9610/2014  and

3

8298/2015, is quashed.

c) Un-Official Note, Un-Official Note No. 139 CASu 139 SaLoSa 2016 dated 17.3.2017, issued by Deputy Secretary, DPAR Services, Government of Karnataka, is quashed;

d) Official  Memorandum,  Official Memorandum No. 19457 DMA 32 KaMAS 2016-17 dated  27.03.2017,  issued  by  Director, Municipal  Administration,  Bengaluru,  is quashed;

e) All  orders  of  appointment/s  issued pursuant  to  Final  Select  List  dated 21.03.2014  prepared  by  KPSC  are  declared illegal and shall stand quashed; and

f) Government Order, Government Order No. CaaSuE  53  SaLoSa  2014,  Bangalore  dated 14.8.2014, withdrawing requisitions issued to  KPSC  for  selection  of  Gazetted Probationers  for  2011,  and  to  close selection process, is sustained."

6. The  High  Court  observed  that  appointment  of

ineligible,  inefficient  or  persons  of  questionable

integrity has serious adverse impact on the working of

the Government and is anathema to the rule of law.

Best selection to Government service was the mandate of

the Constitution. No right accrued to candidates merely

by being in the select list.  Thus, the Tribunal was in

error in directing appointment of persons validity of

whose  selection  was  seriously  doubted  by  the

Government.

7. We  find  that  the  High  Court  has  referred  to

material on record in the form of call details between

candidates and members of the KPSC. All the members who

interviewed  the  candidates  awarded  exactly  the  same

4

marks to particular candidates. There was no objective

assessment by individual members. There appeared to be

extraneous  reasons  in  awarding  the  marks.  566

candidates were awarded same marks which appeared to be

pre-determined.  Digital  video  recorder  in  the  KPSC

building was replaced to destroy evidence.  In this

view  of  the  matter,  we  do  not  find  any  ground  to

interfere with the view of the High Court that the

selection  could  not  have  been  sustained.   If  the

selection is found to be tainted in any manner, it is

always open to the concerned authority to annul such

selection to maintain purity of the selection process.

It may not always be necessary to segregate tainted and

untainted  candidates  when  the  process  itself  is

tainted.  Moreover, at pre-appointment stage, decision

to cancel the selection process can be interfered only

if it is patently arbitrary, malafide or illegal.  In

the present case, the High Court has rightly applied

these  parameters  and  found  no  case  for  interference

with the decision to annul the selection.

8. Learned  counsel  for  some  of  the  parties

submitted that the written examination is not vitiated

by  any  irregularity  and  the  same  can  be  sustained.

Interviews can be held again.

9. Since this contention does not appear to have

been  raised  before  the  High  Court  we  permit  this

contention to be now raised by either of the parties by

5

moving the High Court within two weeks from today. If

such  an  application  is  moved,  the  High  Court  may

examine the same on merits.  If the High Court finds

that the written examination is free from any blemish,

the High Court may consider restoration of the result

of  the  written  examination  and  further  selection

process to be conducted.  It will also be open to the

High Court to direct re-evaluation of scripts of all

the candidates or to sustain the cancellation of result

of the written examination so that fresh selection can

be held.  We do not express any opinion on merits of

the rival contentions which will be open to be gone

into by the High Court. The  High  Court  may  take  a

decision  in  the  matter  at  the  earliest  preferably

within a period of three months from the date the High

Court is moved.

The  appeals  are  disposed  of  in  the  aforesaid

terms.

…...…................J. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

...….…................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

NEW DELHI, APRIL 4, 2018