IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS … · 2016. 6. 30. · in the high court of...
Transcript of IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS … · 2016. 6. 30. · in the high court of...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
W.P.No.27674/2012 c/w W.P.Nos.41366/2012, 27730/2012, 43718 & 43720 – 43732/2012, 4297/2013
& 1733/2013 (GM – PIL)
In W.P.No.27674/2012: BETWEEN : 1. Khaleel Ahmed K.R.,
S/o Late Rasool Sab Aged about 58 years, C/o Azeez Khan No.2584, Idgah Mohalla Chikkaballapur-562 101.
2. Veeranna
S/o Ramaiah V., Aged about 43 years, Sasalu Post-572 122 Honnudike, Tumkur District.
3. Shameer K. Gaonkar
S/o Kamalakar Gaonkar Aged about 41 years, Behind KPTCL, Post Vandige Ankola-581 314, Uttara Kannada District.
4. Jayashekharappa
S/o Halage Gowda
R
- 2 -
Aged about 41 years, Machenahalli Post Chikkamagalur Taluk & District.
5. Rajkumar Naik
S/o Late Monappa Naik Aged about 42 years, Plot No.87, NGO Colony, Jewargi Road, Gulbarga-585 102.
6. K.S.Dakshayani Devi
D/o Sidda Shetty K.S. Aged about 41 years, No.191, LIG 2ND Stage, Kuvempunagara, Mysore-570 073.
7. Subraya Shambhu Hegde
S/o Shambhu S. Hegde Aged about 41 years, Mudakani Post, Honnavara, Uttara Kannada – 581 395.
8. Khaleel Ahamed
S/o Late Khalendar Saheb Aged about 43 years, No. 697/75, East End, Tilkanagar, Bangalore-560 011.
9. Leelavathi T. Raju
D/o T.Kondaiah Aged about 46 years, Balaji Nivas, S.S.Puram, Tumkur.
10. D.Lakshminarayana
S/o Devendrappa Aged about 41 years, No.77,
Sri Ganesha, Gandhibazaar, Shimoga-577 202.
- 3 -
11. M.N.Krishnachar S/o Late Narsimhachar
Aged about 41 years, D.M.Palya, Don Basco Road
Sira Gate Post, Tumkur. 12. Ravishankar K.
S/o Jayarama Rao S. Aged about 40 years,
Shettyhalli Road Fort Malavalli-571 430,
Mandya District. 13. Chandrahasa H.R.
S/o Rudrappa Aged about 43 years,
Mugabla Village & Post Hosakote Taluk,
Bangalore-562 114. 14. V.Vijaykumar
S/o Late M.Venkataramana Aged about 45 years, No.413/16,
13th Main, Lakkasandra Layout, Bangalore-560 030.
15. R.VenkateshReddy
S/o Ramappa, Aged about 42 years, Nayandanahalli, Herikattigenahalli, Chitamani
Chikkaballapura District-563 128. 16. Shivamurthy B.T.
S/o Simha Shetty B.T. Aged about 43 years,
S.Bidare Post, Kadur Taluk Chikkamagalur District. 17. Hanumatharaya T.V.
S/o Late Eranna
- 4 -
Aged about 49 years, No.2988, 1st Main, ‘C’ Block
Rajajiangar, Bangalore-560 021.
18. H.S.Veena
D/o H.B.Shivanna Aged about 41 years, No.40,
Nalme, 3rd Main Vidyanagar, Tumkur-572 103. 19. Kalefulla H.S.
S/o Late Shafifullah Aged about 47 years, No.612/1, 15th Cross, K.T.J.Nagar
Davanagere-577 002. 20. Vijayakumar Reddy B.R.
S/o Ramakrishna Reddy Aged about 37 years, No.38,
1st Floor, 11th Cross 16th Main, BTM Layout,
Bangalore-560 029. 21. Vijaykumar Naik
S/o Nonaya Naik Aged about 39 years,
R/o Bailu House Kadandale Village & Post ,
Karkala Taluk – 574 277. 22. A.Ananda
S/o Annegowda Aged 42 years, Kalkere Village,
Doddabelalu Post, Piriyapatna, Mysore District.
23. S.Devaraju
S/o L.Shivashankar Aged about 44 years, PNR Palya,
- 5 -
Sira Gate Post, Tumkur-572 016.
24. Chandregowda
S/o Late Jogi Gowda Aged about 49 years,
Badur Post, Arsikere Taluk, Hassan District. 25. Liaqat Ali H.R.,
S/o Abdul Gaffar Sab Aged about 44 years,
Haralipura Village Marabana Halli Post,
Channagiri Taluk Davanagere – 577 551. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri M.B.Nargund, Senior Counsel along with Sri VikramPhadke, Adv.)
AND : 1. The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-560 001. 2. The Principal Secretary Department of Personnel &
Administrative Reforms (DPAR) Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001.
3. The Karnataka Public Service Commission Udyoga Soudha, Bangalore-560 001 (As per order dated 12.08.2013). 4. Sri Hidayatullah,
Officer of Special Duty Department of Health &Family Welfare,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001.
- 6 -
(Impleaded vide order dated 19.02.2014). 5. Sri Mohamed Rafi Pasha
S/o Mohamed Yusuf Khan Aged about 33 years, No.4/1,
Kareem Enclave, Flat No.2B, 2nd Floor, 13th Cross, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 011
(Impleaded vide order dated 20.08.2014). 6. Sri Bhaskar Naik
S/o Late Neelakant S. Naik Aged about 44 years, No.153,
5th ‘A’ Cross, Yelahanka New Town Bangalore-560 064.
(Impleaded vide order dated 20.08.2014). 7. Smt.Salma Firdose
W/o Jameel Ahamed Pasha Aged about 40 years,
Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies Bangalore
(Impleaded vide order dated 20.08.2014). 8. Smt.Asha Parveen
D/o Mohammed Pasha Aged about 39 years, No.62,
2nd Cross, J.S.Nagar Saraswathipura, M.Nandini Layout,
Bangalore -560 096 (Impleaded vide order Dated 20.08.2014). 9. Sri Natesh D.B.
S/o Basavarajappa Aged about 38 years, No.3/1,
7th A Main Road, Muthyalanagar, Bangalore-560 054
(Impleaded vide order Dated 20.08.2014).
- 7 -
The following Respondents are impleaded vide order dated 16.09.2014
Post: Assistant Commissioner Group-A 10. Satheesha B.C.
Veterinary Officer Canine Rabies Control Unit,
Dhanvantri Road Mysore – 570 001. 11. Nagaraju N.R.
C/o Dr. S.M.Byregowda No.20/2, Krishna Kuvempu Road,
Hebbal Kempapura, Bangalore-560 024.
12. Basavarajendra H.,
No.382, 13th Main, RMV Extn., Sadashivanagar,
Bangalore-560 080. 13. Gopalakrishna H.N.
C/o Rajanna R., Door No.74, Behind Subramanya Temple, Banagiri Nagar, BSK 3rd Stage, Bangalore-560 085.
14. Raghavendra Suhasaa H.G.
S/o H.T.Govinda Gowda 250, 3rd Main, 1st Cross,
BHCS Layout, Chikkalasandra Bangalore-560 061. 15. Shivashankara N.,
C/o Rame Gowda No.40, 5th B Cross, 1st Main,
Defence Colony, Hesaraghatta Road, T.Dasarahalli, Bangalore-560 073.
- 8 -
16. Arundati Chandrashekar D/o Dr. T.Chandrashekar
No.22, “Anugraha”, 2nd Main, Muneshwara Block, Harinagar Cross, Konankunte
Bangalore-560 062. 17. Ravi M.R.
No.271, Belaku, Behind Water Tank, Alanahalli Extension, Mysore-570 011.
18. Ravindra P.N.
S/o P.H.Ningappa A.M.G.H.P.S., Kallenahalli,
Thyagadhakatte Post Tarikere Taluk-577 549. 19. Jyothi K.
No.823, 6th Cross, 5th Main, M.C. Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040.
20. Meena Nagaraj C.N. No.606/614, New Kamakshi Layout 1st Stage, 1st ‘A’ Main Road,
Basaveshwara Nagar Bangalore-560 079. 21. Akram Pasha
S/o Nanne Jan, C/o Riyaz Basha, No.564,
Darga Mohalla Chickballapur-562 101. 22. Leelavathy K.
D/o G.N.Kamanna No.61, 3rd Cross,
Nanjareddy Colony
- 9 -
HAL Post, Bangalore-560 017. 23. Vasanthakumar P.,
S/o Puttamadaiah No.1718/A, 11th Main,
Bayyanna Garden, Prakash Nagar Bangalore-560 021. 24. Karee Gowda,
S/o Sidde Gowda Chikkona Hally, Kelaghatta Post,
Maddur Taluk, Mandya District – 571 419.
25. Shivanand Kapashi
S/o Bhimappa Kapashi Guru Kripa, Basavanagar,
Gokak, Belgaum District-591 307. 26. Gangubai Ramesh Manakar
D/o Ramesh Manakar Near Bus Stand, Sindagi
Bijapur District – 586 128. 27. Kavitha S. Mannikeri No.191, 8th Cross,
Shakthiganapathi Nagar Basaveshwaranagara,
Bangalore-560 079. 28. Peddappaiah R.S.
S/o Sanjeevarayappa Ramachandra Pura P.O.,
Gowribidanur Taluk, Kolar District.
29. Rushibendra Murthy G.C., No.91/A, MES Colony,
Konena Agrahara, HAL Bangalore-560 017.
- 10 -
Post: Assistant Controller Group-A.
30. Hanumanthegowda T.S. S/o Sambulinge Gowda
T.Gollahalli, Kodihalli Post, Kanakapura Taluk, Bangalore District-562119.
31. Shivanand G. Navi
S/o Gurupadappa Y. Navi, At Post Yadhalli, Bilgi Taluk, Bagalkot District-587 117.
32. Kankaraja D. No.5, “Shreyas Nilaya”,
Padma Film Theatre Road Amruthahalli, Sahakara Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 092. 33. Sidrameshwar Ukkali
S/o Mahadev Bapuri Lane, At PO Rabkavi,
Bagalkot-587314. 34. Raghu G.P.,
S/o Puttegowda G.A. Boovanahally Post,
Hassan Taluk & District-573 201. 35. Khadar Pasha A.
S/o Ahmed Hussain MIG-II, 454, 1st Stage, 3rd Cross,
Rajeev Nagar, Mysore-570 019. 36. Srikanth Rao K.
C/o Shivashankar Rao Excel ELEL, No. C-142,
Near Post Office, Peenya 2nd Stage Bangalore – 560 058.
- 11 -
37. Vasantha Kumar B.V.
S/o Venkataramanappa Bendiganahalli, Hoskote Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District-562 129.
38. Manjunatha Swamy G.N. C/o Rangaswamy, No.375, 8th Block, Mallappa Reddy Layout
Koramangala, Bangalore-560 095. 39. Revanna R.
S/o Ramakrishnappa Nagannana Palya, Sira Gate,
Tumkur-572 106. 40. Roopashree B.V.
No.92, II Main, Binny R.P.C. Layout Vijayanagar II Stage,
Bangalore-560 040. 41. Raghavendra V.
S/o S.Venkatraman, No.51, 16th Cross, 33rd Main Road, J.P.Nagar 6th Phase, Bangaore-560 078.
42. Sangappa Upase,
At Post Anjutagi Indi Taluk, Bijapur District-586 204. 43. Sheik Lathief,
S/o Sheik Pakir Sahib Odala House, Ujire Post,
Belthangady Tq., D.K. District-574240. 44. Ramesha Reddy B.
S/o Bali Reddy N., Digavachinatapalli, Addagal P.O.,
- 12 -
Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District-563 134. 45. Mahantesh S.,
C/o Gangadhar, Advocate, 2nd Main, Near Jain Temple, Hosadurga – 577527.
46. Gangadhara B.K.
S/o Kempegowda Bandihalli, Sulekere Post
Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District-573 103. 47. Santhavva Kadi
D/o Basalingappa Kadi C/o T.Shivalingappa
State Bank Colony, Near KEB, Badami, Bagalkot-587 201.
48. Mohammed Iqbal M. Mirza
S/o Mohammed Baig G. Mirza PHC K., Salwadagi P.O.,
B.Bagewadi Taluk, Bijapur District-586 208.
49. Sheela Thomas
D/o Thomas Gabriel No.659, 3rd Cross, 3rd Main,
1st Block, Ramakrishnanagar Mysore-570 022. 50 Channappa A.,
Sri Gurumahanteshwara Nilaya 163/1039, Vijayavittalanagara Siruguppa, Bellary District– 583121.
51. Milan S. Murgod
C/o Sri S.S.Murgod Bharat Nivas, 2nd Main, 6th Cross,
- 13 -
CCB 451, Sadashivanagar, Belgaum.
52. Sapna M.A. 13/2, Alarmel Homes,
9th Cross, West Park Road Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003. 53. Sangeetha Gajanan Bhat
D/o Gajanan Anant Bhat “Anant”, 3943/3, Opp. Anjaneya Temple, Mysore Road, Hunsur-571 105. 54. Bannappa J. Gudimani
S/o Jetteppa Gudimani At Post Hadanur, Shorapur Tq.,
Gulbarga District-585 216. 55. Ravikumar P.,
S/o R.Putta Setty Kumbara Beedhi, Bandalli,
Kollegal Tq., Chamarajanagar District-571 439. 56. Beena K.
D/o A.B.Bharathamma, No.221, 15th ‘C’ Cross, 2nd Stage,
2nd Phase WOC, Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore-560 086.
57. Veeragoud Patil
S/o Shivanagouda Patil Veterinary College Hostel,
R.No.50, Hebbal, Bangalore-560 024.
58. Vani N. No.334, 2nd Cross, 2nd Block RMV II Stage, Bangalore-560 094.
- 14 -
59. Susheelamma N. D/o Narayanappa M.
Kempaiah Compound, Kumbarpet, Malur-563 130.
60. Onkarappa K.H.
S/o Tailore Hanumanna Turuvanur Post,
Chitradurga District-577 517. 61. Kambanna D. No.LF 47/3 (Ground Floor), Near Balamuri Ganapathi Temple Nandini Layout, Bangalore-560 096. 62. Lavanya S.
D/o Suryanarayana Sarjapura P.O., Anekal Taluk Bangalore District-562 125. 63. Anjaneya T.
S/o Ningappa Holavagalu Post, Harapanahalli Tq., Davanagere District-583213. 64. Lakshmikanth B.,
S/o B.Basavaiah 827, 9th Main, 5th Cross, 1st Block, Kalyananagara Bangalore-560 043. 65. Venkatesha Murthy P.L. No.36/1, 3rd Cross, 13th Main,
A.K. Colony, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040.
66. Parvathi H.B.
D/o Basavarajappa H.B. 198, 17th Cross, 3rd Block,
- 15 -
4th Stage, Basaveshwaranagara Bangalore-560 079. 67. Bharati
D/o Manikrao, Jyothi Nivas, No.9-8-136/3, Baswanagar Colony
BVB College Road, Bidar – 585403. 68. Varurpushpa
D/o Fakkeerappa Varur H.No.73, Heggeri Colony Old Hubli, Dharwar District-580 024. 69. Geeta N. Yeresheemi
D/o Ningappa G. Yeresheemi Baramagiri, Raj Rajeshwarinagar,
Ranebennur, Haveri District – 581 115.
70. Manjula S.
D/o G.Subramani G., 121 LIG, 2nd Stage, HUDCO Kuvempunagar, Mysore-570 023. 71. Chandrakala No.LF 47/3 (Ground Floor),
Near Balamuri Ganapathi Temple Nandini Layout,
Bangalore-560 076.
72. Shobha T.R. D/o Ramachandra
‘Sapthagiri’, 999/7, 5th A Cross HRBR 1st Block, Kalyananagara, Bangalore-560 043.
73. Ramappa Hatti
S/o Irappa Hatti H.No.24, Pantnagar, Pant Bale,
Kundri, Belgaum-591 103.
- 16 -
74. Sunitha M. No.329/3, 23rd Main Road,
Sarakkikere, J.P.Nagar 5th Phase, Bangalore-560 078.
75. Zohra Jabeen
D/o Hussaini Baig No.28, C.K.Road, Channapatna,
Bangalore - 571 501. 76. Nagesh M.H.
C/o Shivakumar Reddy Kaveri Indl.Complex, 31-36, 1ST Main,
2nd Stage, Arakere, MICO Layout, B.G.Road, Bangalore-560 076.
77. Siddagangamma
D/o Sannasiddappa Madenahalli, R.L.Pura Post Sira Taluk, Tumkur District-572 115.
Post: Asst. Commr. of Commercial Tax
78. Veerabhadra Hanchinal S/o Bhimappa
At Post Hulloli, Hukkeri Tq., Belgaum District – 591 309.
79. Sivakumar S. Itagi
C/o Mahantesh Book Depot., Vallabh Bhai Chowk,
Bagalkot – 587 101. 80. Virupaksha K.C. Kuruvangi at Post,
Chikmagalur District-577 102. 81. Krishna Kumar T.R.
S/o Rajanna Naidu T.,
- 17 -
Southern Extension, Kollegal, Chamarajanagar District-571 440. 82. Shivakumar H.R.
S/o Ramaiah Hale Upparahally, Hossur Hobli
Gowribidanur Tq., Kolar District. 83. Ganji Dattatreya
S/o Somashekarappa Ganji C/o S.S.Ganji, 8/3, Latti Pet
Old Hubli – 580 024. 84. Prakash D.P.
S/o Paramashivappa D.H. No.934, 21st Main,
J.P.Nagar 2nd Phase, Bangalore-560 078.
85. Yasmin Begum Walikar
D/o G.M.Olekar District Hospital, Haveri-581 110. 86. Sulakshana S.N.
D/o Late Sadashiva Naik Devi Sadan, Mudarangadi Udupi District, Pilar Post-574 113. 87. Meera Rachappa Alur H.No.1-1166/3-D, ’Shanta’
Aiwan Shahi Area Gulbarga-585 102. 88. Yashodha K.
D/o Krishna Moorthy Giridhama, 4th Cross
Upparahalli, Tumkur - 572 102. 89. Linganna Kuchabal
S/o Gurupadappa
- 18 -
C/o H.G.Gundalli, JE BDO Qtrs., Adhyapak Nagar, Hubli-580 032.
90. Nagaswamy N.S.,
S/o Shiva Murthy Kalikamba Temple Street Nagamangala, Mandya District-571 432.
91. Dr. Umakanth R.S.
S/o Sridhar Rao R.S., 1544, Vinobha Road North, 3rd Cross, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysore – 570 001. 92. Vijaya Kumar B.C.
S/o Chennegowda C. IV Cross, D.No.1914 Subhashnagar, Mandya-571 401. 93. Shabbeer Basha Ganti
S/o G.Rajavali Sab 1 Ward, Mylar Road,
Huvina Hadagali P.O. Bellary District-583 219. 94. Renukananda D.R.
S/o Revanasiddappa C/o M.Puttasubbanna, No.138/C,
9th Cross, 3rd Main, Viveknagar, Bangalore-560 047.
95. Srinivas S.M.
S/o Munilakkappa Mallur P.O., Sidlaghatta Tq.,
Kolar District-562 102. 96. Uma K.A. No.97/3, 1st Floor, Rao Bahadur
Hayavadana Road, Bull Temple Cross, Gavipuram Extension,
- 19 -
Bangalore – 560 019. 97. Kumara Naik G.
S/o Gopya Naik Kalkere Post, Holalkere Tq.,
Chitradurga District-577 531. 98. Sharath B.
S/o Bheemaiah B. No.52, 1st Floor, 5th Cross
P.F.Layout, Near Maruthi Mandir, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040.
99. Sonala G. Naik
D/o K.R.Gangadhar Naik 320, 3rd Stage, 4th Block,
Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore-560 079. 100. Seema Naik B. No.3, 37th Main, BTM 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560 068. 101. Manjunath K.M.
C/o Cheluvaraj No.1125, Garadi Road,
Ittigegud, Mysore-570 010. 102. Shambhu Bhat D.
S/o Shankara Bhat D. Devamani House, Post Bettapady,
Puttur, Mangalore District-574 259. Treasury Officer - Group-A 103. Suma S.
D/o Sreepathi Rao N. 17/2, 1st Floor, Kripa Apartment,
II Main, Chinnappa Garden Bangalore-560 046.
- 20 -
104. Panduranga A.R. Lecturer, Sri Mahadeshwara College Kollegal, Chamarajnagar District-571 440. Assistant Labour Commissioner - Group A 105. Shripad Bolashetti
S/o Subbanna PG Dept. of Education,
Karnataka University Dharwad-580 001. 106. Chidananda M.S.
S/o Shankaraiah M.B. No.1656, Sri Shankara Nilaya
2nd Cross, Vidyanagar, Mandya-571 401.
107. Balakrishna C.H.
S/o Lokayya Naik Chatrapady House,
Guthigar P.O. & Village Sullia-574 218.
District Officer S.C. & ST Welfare - Group A 108. Urmila B.
D/o Shivarama V. Shishila Post, Belthangady Taluk Mangalore District-574 198. 109. Archana Y.B.
D/o Balakrishna Y.C. No.45, BWSSB Quarters , 18th Cross,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 055. 110. Chandra Naik U., # 3392, 6th Main, 3rd Cross
R.P.C. Layout, Vijayangar 2nd Stage,
- 21 -
Bangalore-560 040. 111. Ganeshappa M.
S/o Marappa M. Bhadrapura Post, Shikaripura Tq., Shimoga District-577 427. 112. Sridhar R. No.14, “Amrutha Varshini”
Shanthidhama High School Compound Sunkadakatte (Vishwaneedam P.O.)
Bangalore-560 091 Post: Tahlisidar - Group B. 113. Udayakumar Shetty B.
C/o Rachaiah, 1st Cross, Palasandra Layout, Kolar – 563 101.
114. Shiva Prasad P.R.
S/o Late Ramanna M.V. No.825, 24th Main, 2nd Phase J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-560 078.
115. Manjunatha P.S.
S/o Sharanappa Turuvanur,
Chitradurga District-577517. 116. Madhukeswara S.S.
‘Dhavalagiri’, 7th Cross Chamundeshwarinagar
Mandya – 571 401. 117. Varaprasad Reddy B.N.
S/o Narasimha Reddy B. Hunasenahally, Melya Post
Gowribidanur Tq., Kolar District-561 208.
- 22 -
118. Satis Babu H.S. S/o Siddaiah H.B.
Honnalagere, Maddur Mandya District- – 571 433.
119. Mahesh Babu N.
S/o B.P.Nanjundaswamy Thyagaraja Colony,
Pandavapura, Mandya District-571 434. 120. Praveen Bagewadi
S/o Pandit, Dr .Ambedkar Nagar At P.O. Chikkodi, Belgaum – 591 201.
121. Kathyayani Devi S.,
D/o Shivashankarappa S.H. No.605, 6th Block, Rajajinagar
Bangalore-560 010. 122. Mahadev A. Muragi
S/o Adiveppa Muragi Lecturer in English, Govt. P.U. College Nagamangala,
Mandya District-571432. 123. Nagahanumaiah G.H. S/o Hanumaiah Gonihalli,
Yalachigere Post, Koratagere Tq., Urdigere via,
Tumkur-572 140. 124. Dasegowda M.
D.No.442/1, 1st Floor Opp. SC/ST Body Hostel,
Land Army Office Road V.V.Nagar, Kallahally,
Mandya – 571 401.
- 23 -
125. Devaraju A. S/o Anjanappa K.H.
No.1910, K Block, 1st Stage 3rd Cross, Kuvempunagar
Mysore – 570 023. 126. Ravi M. Tirlapur
S/o Mallappa B. Tirlapur Kumar Galli, Shiggaon,
Haveri District-581 205. 127. Manjuntha Swamy B.S.
Mangala Huluvenahally C.C. Kuppe Post, Bangalore South-562 130.
128. Javaregowda T.
S/o Thimme Gowda (Late) Poornima Sadana, Shankarnagar 3rd Cross, Mandya-571 401. 129. Shashidhar Bagali
S/o Shakambari Nilaya Near Puttan Shetty
Navajeevan Housing Colony, Opp. Hospital Building
Bijapur-586 103. 130. Reshma Tahseen
D/o Mohd. Nisar Ahmed No.25/6-II Cross, Church Road,
Narappa Garden, J.C. Nagar,
Bangalore- 560 006. 131. Ismail Saheb Shirahatti
S/o Rajesaheb Near Police Station,
Shiggaon, Haveri District-581 205.
- 24 -
132. Jayamadhava P. S/o Prabhashankar
No.4035, Shankar Nagar, 1st Cross, Chandgal Layout, Mandya-571 401.
133. Vani B. No.399/H, 9th F Main,
6th Cross, Vijayanagar Bangalore-560 040. 134. Khazi Nafeesa
C/o U.Abdul Mutalib, Lecturer, PWD Quarters, No.49/7, Belagal Cross, Cantonment, Bellary – 583 104.
135. Dhanalakshmi
D/o Nagarajaiah N., Avalahalli, Singanayakanahalli Post Yelahanka, Bangalore-560 064. 136. Kavitha Rajaram
D/o N.Rajaram No.599, Irwin Road,
Mysore – 570 001. 137. Harishilpa G.R.,
D/o V.Ramaiah Gunjur Post,
Bangalore South-560 087. 138. Rashmi G. No.9, 5th Cross, Teachers Colony,
1st Stage J.P. Nagar Post, Bangalore-560 078.
139. Rekha T.
D/o Thimmegowda C. 679, 11-A Main, A Sector,
- 25 -
New Town, Yelahanka Bangalore-560 064. 140. Suresh Kumar K.M. No.1622, 1st floor, 1st B Cross,
Opp. Water Tank, Chandra Layout, Bangalore-560 040.
141. Venkatesha Murthy V.
S/o S.V.Venakta Swamy D.No.6/6, R.V.Shetty Layout Sheshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020. 142. Ranganatha
S/o Kenchappa No.1524, Kuchappapet,
Doddaballapur Bangalore (R) District-561 203. 143. Dayananda Bhandari ‘Matri Chhaya”, Asst. Teacher,
Govt. P.U. College Manninalkur, Bantwal Tq.,
D.K.-574 298.
144. Rachappa M. S/o Ayyappa, KSV Nilaya,
No.13, Kalasipalyam New Extn., Bangalore – 560 002. 145. Raju Mogaveera K.
S/o Krishna Mogaveera Employment Officer,
Hebbar Building, Kadiyalli, Udupi.
146. Suresh G.
S/o H.Ganganna No.735, ‘Sree Bhagavathi
Bhagavan Ashraya’
- 26 -
Feedom Fighters Layout, Laggere, Bangalore-560 058.
147. Vijaykumar Honakeri
S/o Maruthi, C/o Honakeri M.D.
Naveen Shoe Mart, Gandhibazaar, Nargund, Gadag-582 207.
148. Manjuanth G.N.
S/o Nanjegowda G.P. Gunje at Singapura Post,
H.N.pura Taluk, Hassan District-573 211. 149. Nagaraja L.C.
S/o Lingappa B.H.Road, Paramanna Layout,
Nelamangala Taluk Bangalore – 562 123. 150. Roopa B.R.
D/o Rangappa B.C. No.368, 16th Main B Block,
Vijayanagara 3rd stage Mysore – 570 017. 151. Narasimhappa
S/o Krishnappa A.D., Katenahalli, Somanahalli Peresandra Road,
Gudibande Taluk-562 104. 152. Bharathi D. W/o H.P.Mahadevappa No.28, MIG-1, Vijayanagar Block K.R.Nagar Town,
Mysore District-571 602.
- 27 -
153. Roopakala T.K. D/o Kariyappa T.
KHB Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Sagar, Shimoga District-577 401.
154. Roopa R.
D/o M.S.Raghunath Singh 684, 5th Cross, Paaparam Street Nazarbad, Mysore-570 010. 155. Sharada C. Kolkar,
C/o Prabhakar Doddamani, Rajnagar Shivalli Plot
Mruthyanjaya Nagar, Dharwad-580 006.
156. Renukamba Roopanagara, No.1742,
22nd Cross Matti Kyathana Halli Post
Mysore Taluk, Mysore District.
157. Shanthala K.T.
D/o Thippaiah B.P. 34, 1st Main, 3rd Stage, 4th Block
Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore-560 079.
158. Kavitha Rani R.
D/o Ramaiah, D.No.32, Dharmanna Garden,
R.T.Nagar, Dinnur Bangalore-560 032. 159. Ganapathi Kattinakere
C/o Akshya Refrigeration Soraba Road, Sagar Taluk Shimoga District-577 401.
- 28 -
160. Mallikarjun M. Mellihalli No.177, Siddalingehwara Nagar
Behind Nirmiti Kendra Bodgaid II Stage,
Mysore-570 026. 161. Kusuma Kumari S.
D/o R.Srinivasa No.705, 7th B Main Road
HRBR Layout, 1st Block Kalyananagara, Bangalore-560 043.
Post: Commercial Tax Officer 162. Yogananda H.G.
S/o Gopalagowda C. Mylanayakana Hosahalli Channapatna,
Bangalore District--571 501. 163. Harshavardhan B.V.
S/o Vishwanath B.H. Harsha Nilaya, No.99, 4th Main
2nd Stage, Domlur, Bangalore-560 071.
164. Sateesh N.,
S/o Nagappa N., H.No.353, 5th Main, 3rd Stage 3rd Block, Basaveshwaranagar
Bangalore-560 079. 165. Mohamed Irfanulla
S/o Mohamed Obeidulla D.No.102, Dharmasbhala Road
Chitradurga-577 501. 166. Siddalingappa N.R.
S/o Late Revappa G.S.
- 29 -
Doddabbigere at Post Channagiri Tq. – 577 552.
167. Virupaksha K.M. No.367, Virupaksha Nilaya
6th Main, Opp. SBM, 1st Block Koramangala,
Bangalore-560 034. 168. Viswanatha G.
S/o G.Sharanaiah Hemadala, Hiriyur Taluk Chitradurga District-577 545.
169. Manjuantha B.N.
S/o Nanjunde Gowda B.N. No.33, 22nd Main,
Muneshwara Block Bangalore – 560 085.
170. Prabhudev B.,
S/o Basavegowda C. 475, Goutam Nilaya
6th Main, 11th Cross, Sadashivanagar
Bangalore – 560 080. 171. Balachandra P.M.
S/o Mahantesh P.M. Chetanmahal,
M.K.Road Konandur,
Shimoga District--577422. 172. Lokesha B.S.
S/o Subbegowda Basavanahalli, Koppal
Arkalgudu Taluk, Hassan District--573 136.
- 30 -
173. Vinsent S/o Aesudas
Dasagodanahalli, Adugoor P.O. Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk
Hassan District – 573 121. 174. Appagegowda H.C.
S/o Chunche Gowda Hagalahally, Maddur Taluk
Mandya District – 571 422. 175. Jaideep Gaonkar
S/o N.V.Gaonkar No.1690-J, Honnamma Habbuwada P.O.,
Karwar-581 306. 176. Ferozkhan M. Killedar No.20/2, Bindergi Oni
Ganeshpeth, Hubli-580 020. 177. Manuthur Sandhya Rani
C/o Mohan Store, Church Road (Airport Road), Murugesh Palya
Bangalore-560017. 178. Bindhu Mark
D/o I.Mark, H.No.3, Hutti Gold Mines Hospital
Hutti, Raichur District--584 115. 179. Rajeshwari Kasturi
D/o Sarma Kasturi V.J. No.69, Saraswathinagar
Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040. 180. Shobha P.D.
D/o P.C.Devaiah D.No.11/222, Raghavendra Kripa
Race Course Road
- 31 -
Madikeri-571 201. 181. Theerthe Gowda
S/o Lakke Gowda No.102, “Omkar”, Ground Floor
Ganesh Mandir Road Thyagarajanagar 2nd Block
Bangalore-560 028. 182. Shailaja M.K.
Aged 42 years, D/o Karigouda C/o K.Shivanna, 1st Cross
Jayanagar Extension Chikmagalore-577 101. 183. Shreedhara Nayaka K.J.
S/o Javaranayaka Katnal, Chandagal Post K.R.Nagara Taluk,
Mysore District--571 602.
184. Manjunathaswamy B.M. D.No.2200, 3rd B Main
5th Cross, Vijayanagar II Stage Bangalore-560 040. 185. Amarendra
S/o Mallappa Gudipalli Post, Nangali Via Mulbagal Taluk,
Kolar District--563 132. 186. Pundlik L. Sadure
A 36/1, K.P.W.D. Quarters Main Road, Jeevanbhimanagar
Bangalore-560 075. 187. Prakash K.
Record Assistant Divisional Archives
- 32 -
Palace Complex , Mysore – 570 001.
188. Gopal Jadhav
C/o Iswara, No.24, I B Cross, S.V.G.Road, Hucchappa Layout, Mudalpalya, Bhairaveshwaranagar Bangalore – 560 072.
189. Sumana
D/o Sathyanarayanappa K.R. Naraganahalli, Thubagere P.O., D.S.Pura Taluk,
Bangalore District. 190. Sujatha K.R.
D/o Ramachandrappa K.S. Avinahalli, Kuruvari Village,
Sagar Taluk, Shimoga District-577 401.
191. Hemalatha J.
D/o M.Janaki Prasad 229, 12th Cross, 11th Main Wilson Garden,
Bangalore-560 027. 192. Anitha B.K. “Ashirvada”, No.1577,
1st Cross, Chandra Layout, Bangalore-560 040.
193. Annapurna S. Chour
C/o Dr. M.H.Chalawadi MIGH No.27/D3,
Shanti Nagar, KHB Colony, Gulbarga-585103.
194. Chowdaiah
S/o Lingaiah
- 33 -
Ujjani Post, Huliyurdurga Hobli Kunigal Taluk – 572 123.
Post: Administrative Labour Officer
195. Jayadeva H.M. S/o Marulappa H. Anjanapura, Shikaripur Taluk Shimoga District-577 214.
196. Johnson K.G.
S/o T.K.George KVG Law College,
Kurunjibhag, Sullia, D.K.-574 327.
197. Nagesha D.G.
S/o Sanne Gowda D.A., Devarabhana at Hethur Post
Sakaleshpur Taluk Hassan District-573123.
198. Guruprasad H.L.
S/o Lakshminarayana Rao H. S.M. Village, Shirala P.O.
Belthangady-574 217. 199. Sheela M. No.50/A, New Timber
Yard Layout, Mysore Road, Bangalore-560 026.
200. Revanna S.
S/o Siddappa, No.9, E-Block, K.C. General Hospital Quarters, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003.
201. Dharanesha
S/o Mahadevaiah
- 34 -
Jakkahalli P.O., H.D.Kote Taluk Mysore District – 57 114. 202. Nagaraja K.B. C/o Kenjediappa “Ashirwad”, Karuvinkatte Circle Jogimath 3rd Cross,
Behind Sringeri Mutt Chitradurga.
Post: Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Society 203. Nagesh S. Dongare S/o Shankar V. Dongre 3rd Cross, Shrishiva House Holebenavalli, Nidige Post,
Shimoga District-577 222. 204. Kantharaju R.J. S/o Jayaramaiah K., Kaparahalli at Post Challakere Taluk Chitradurga District-577 522. 205. Vijayakumar G.R. S/o Ramappa Hebbale Village & Post Somwarapete Taluk,
Kodagu-571 232. 206. Anila Kumara K.N. ‘Atmashree’, Hariharapura Post Koppa Taluk,
Chickmagalur District-577 120. 207. Aswathnarayana S/o M.Govindappa Gudemaranahalli Post Magadi Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District-562 127.
- 35 -
208. Nanjunde Gowda K.N. C/o R.Dhananjaya, No.1250, 9th Main, Prakashnagar Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 021. 209. Prasad Reddy C. C/o Sri Sai Medicals, No.3, Nagappa Complex,
Hulimavu Gate Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore-560 076. 210. Rajgopal S/o Bheemasainacharya C/o B.R.Sangam, Ganjihal P.O. Vio Bagalkot,
Bagalkot District-587 115. 211. Lakshmipathaiah No.537, F Block,
Near Canara Bank Sahakara Nagara,
Bangalore-560 092. 212. Viswanath Mahanthappa Malkud S/o Mahanthappa Malkud H.No.20/118, Bharath Chowk Near Syndicate Bank Shahabad-585 228. 213. Kumara H.P. S/o Puttaswamy H.V.
No.50/C, Puttenahalli J.P.Nagar 7th Stage, Bangalore-560 011.
214. Ravikumar G.P. S/o Puttaswamygowda Gerahalli, Attihalli P.O.
- 36 -
Sathnur H.O., Kanakapura Taluk Bangalore District-562 126. 215. Mallappa Shellikeri P., S/o Padadappa Shellikeri K., C/o M.S.Byahatti,
Near Sakroji Press, Halapete, Bagalkot-587 101. 216. Manjula B.G. D/o Govinda Raju B.V. No.16/18, Aswathakatte Road Kasturibanagar, Mysore Road Bangalore-560 026. 217. Savitra B. Kadi D/o K.Basalingappa C/o Shivalingappa,
State Bank Colony Near KEB P.O., Badami, Bagalkot District-587 201. 218. Shashidhara P. S/o Prabhuswamy D.No.2864, 3rd Cross,
Chamundipuram Mysore – 570 004. 219. Meena S. Nayak D/o Subray Nayak C/o H.V.Vasuki Vaibhavi,
565, 15th Main, Padmanabhanagar Bangalore-560 070.
220. Saleem B.K. S/o Abbas K., Adoor Peral House Koyyur Post, Belthangady Tq., D.K.-574 214.
- 37 -
221. Kallappa Obannagol S/o Nagappa Obanna Obannagol H.No.109, Chawadigalli at Post Mutaga Taluk Tq.,
Belgaum District-591124. 222. Krishna Murthy B.R., S/o Rangasetty B.R., Kurubarabudi Halli, Chikkamagalur Taluk & District-577 146. 223. Suresha N., S/o Neelappa, C/o Basamma,
Nagavara Main Road Arabic College Post Bangalore-560 045. 224. Uma M.N. D/o Nanjegowda C/o Girijamma No.539, Last Cross, Bhovi Colony Udayagiri, Mandya. 225. Kumuda Girish D/o V.Girish Gowda No.1617, Classic, K-Block, Ramakrishnanagar,
Mysore-570 023. 226. Thippeswamy S/o Papanna Research Asst. Fodder Production Unit MRS UAS, Dharwad-580005 227. Jayaprakash B., No.35, LIG 6th A Main,
K.H.B. Colony, II Stage Basaveshwaranagara Bangalore-560079.
- 38 -
228. Srinivasa K.L. No.94, Next to Annapurna Trader II Cross, Chandra Layout Bangalore-560 040. 229. Prakash G. S/o L.V.Gangaiah, C/o K.Srinivas, No.223/C
WAP Colony, Yelahanka, Bangalore North-560 064.
230. Raghunath K.R. S/o Ramaiah K.R. No.331, 16th Main, M.C.Layout Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560040. 231. Ingulambika V. Sarode D/o S.Viswanath Rao 1592, Kabir Road,
Lashkar Mohalla Mysore – 570 001. 232. Shashikala Paled C/o M.M.Koppad, Jagatap Compound,
Renuka Krupa Maratha Colony,
Dharwad-580 008. 233. Poornima S. D/o Srinivas G. H.No.15, Handadi Village Brahmavara, Udupi-576 213. 234. Geetha S. Kogilgeri D/o Shivaputra Kogilgeri 1138, E/A, 3-B Main Road 2nd Stage, Vijayanagar Bangalore-560 040.
- 39 -
235. Gopalareddy K. S/o Late Kasu Bheema Reddy Hosa Muchugunte Rama Jogihalli P.O. Challakere Taluk,
Chitradurga District--577 522. 236. Suneetha Sidram D/o Sidram B. R.M.S. Office, Raichur-584 101
Post: Dy. Superintendent Excise 237. Madesh B. S/o Basave Gowda M. D.No.128, Dhobi Street Chamaraja Mohalla Mysore – 570 024. 238. Giri J. S/o G.S.Janardhan No.836, 5th Cross, 5th Main M.C.Layout, Vijayanagar Bangalore-560 040. 239. Nagarajappa T., S/o Thimmappa Head Master, Ammanahalli Javagal, Arasikere Taluk Hassan District-573 125. 240. Roopashree K. D/o Krishnegowda K.V. “Anuroopavinda Nilaya” Shankarnagar, 1st Cross Mandya-571 401. 241. Merunandan K.B S/o Basavaraju K.R., (Kan. Prof.),
Farm House No.107
- 40 -
Kanchagatta, Tiptur Taluk Tumkur District – 572 202. 242. Jagadish Naik No.77, Janapriya Abeelas, 4th Main, Kenchenahalli Rajrajeshwarinagar Bangalore-560098. 243. Shailaja A. Khote D/o Aswathaiah Singanayakanahalli Yelahanka,
Bangalore North District-560 064. 244. Fakeerappa Chalawadi S/o Hanamappa L. Chalawadi Ambedkar Nagar, Saundatti Belgaum District 245. Veena R. H.No.156, Devanathachar Street 5th Main, Chamarajpet Bangalore-560 018. 246. Mohamed Abid Hussain S/o Mohamed Ismail Sab Tavarakere Post, Channagiri Tq. Davanagere District – 577 213. 247. Moses Samuel L., D.No.7/365, II Christian Street Kollegal,
Chamarajanagar District-571 440 248. Shivanagouda S/o Virupakshagouda Parvathi, 548, Mutugekar Chawl Sonar Galli, Vadagaon Belgaum – 590 003.
- 41 -
249. Nirmala N., D/o Narayana Swamy K., No.5, “Nandagokule”,
Doopanahalli HAL II Stage, Indiranagar Bangalore-560 008. 250. Roopa M. No.35, Ramakrishnappa Block J.C.Nagar (M.R.Palya) Bangalore-560 006.
Post: Employment Officers 251. Srinivasa K., S/o Krishnappa B., D.No.2193, “Hema Pushpa” Vivekanandanagar Bangarpet-563 114. 252. Rudranna Gowda G.J. C/o R.V.Chandramouly 1st Main, 5 Link Road Opp. TGB Head Office Basaveshwaranagar, Bellary – 583 103. 252. Chikkaswamy S/o Kenchegowda Govt. High School for Girls Arkeshwaranagar,
Mandya-571 403. 254. Manjunatha B., S/o Bhadraiah, No.818,
Kamakshipalya, Karekallu, Near Gurupriya Kalyanamantapa
Bangalore-560 079.
- 42 -
255. Jagannatha C. D.No.C-192, Sri Lakshmi Nilaya Near Mahadeshwara College Kollegala,
Chamarajanagar District-571 440. 256. Tanuja Sadashiv Rampure D/o N.S.Sadashivaiah W/o G.S. Jagadish Shri Clinic, College Road Javagal, Hassan District-573 125. 257. Khalander Khan S/o Amanulla Khan Main Road, Holehonnur Bhadravathi Taluk Shimoga District – 577 227. 258. Vijayalakshmi J.B. D/o Bore Gowda K., Neeja Nivasa, 1st Main Road Hemavathi Nagar, Hassan – 573 201. 259. Rajanna P. S/o Turuvanur Pennaiah Mustur P.O., Jagalur Tq., Davanagere District-577528. 260. Durugappa Kanakappanavar M. S/o Karethimmappa M. Govt. P.U. College,
Kankagiri P.O., Gangavathi, Koppal District-584119
261. Hattappa P.S. S/o Sanna Thimmappa Gokula Nivas, SR Circle Burujanahatty Chitradurga District – 577 501.
- 43 -
261. Uma C.M. W/o M.G.Sanjeevaiah D.No.14, B Block, Bannur Road Near DAR Office, Mandya-571 401. 263. Sujatha C.E. D/o Eswarappa T.M. “Hamsasadana” 1st floor Anjaneya Street, Vijayapura Post Chickmagalore – 577 101.
Post: Asst. Director of Youth Service 264. Basavaraja Hadapada S/o Somanna Hadapada Kadalabalu Post Hagaribommanahalli Tq., Bellary District – 583 212. 265. Jeethendra Shetty C/o Vasanth Bannady R-3, Bandarkar College Quarters Kundapura,
Udupi District – 576 201. 266. Aravind A. S/o Ananda Rao G. EV 14 IISC Quarters RMV 2nd Stage, New BEL Road Bangalore-560 094. 267. Raju Bavihalli S/o Mahabusaheb Bavihalli D.No.308/5, Masque Street 5 Ward, P.O. & Tq. Huvinahadagali Bellary District- – 583 219. 268. Sateesh Sajjanar S/o R.S.Laxman,
- 44 -
C/o M.B.Sajjanar No.1182/A, 1st Cross, 8th Main RPC Layout, Vijayanagar Bangalore-560 040. 269. Manjula H.P. D/o Puttaswamappa H.M. Hura Road, Hullahalli Nanjangud Taluk,
Mysore District-571 314. 270 Sucheta M. Nelavigi D/o Mahalingappa Nelavigi Jayadevnagar Haveri-578 110. 271. Seebirangaiah S/o Late Dasappa Doddaveeranahalli (Gate)
C.Nandihalli Post, Tumkur District-572 117
272. Gunakar S. S/o R.T.Menon Mansagurikar House Bondalachil Post,
Surathkal Mangalore District-574 158. 273. Ramesh M.C. S/o Channappa M. 14-171, Mudigundam, Kollegal Chamarajanagar District – 571 440. 274. Nagarathna K.M. D/o Maraiah D.No.1101, Moksha Street 2nd Cross, Siddarthanagar Mysore – 570 011.
- 45 -
Post: Asst. Director of Land Records 275. Umesh B.G.
S/o Govindappa No.469, 5th Main, 2nd Stage, 2nd Phase, WCR Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore-560 086.
276. Niranjan R. C/o Venkatagowda D.No.1002/A, 3-A Main, II Stage, E Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore-560 010. 277. Krishna Prasad M.S. C/o Prabhakar No.MIG II 13, Housing Board Colony Bypass Road, Arkalgud Taluk Hassan District – 573 102. 278. Keshavamurthy M.C. S/o Late G.Chikkarangaiah No.34, 5th A Main, 4th Cross A-Block, Agrahara Dasarahalli Bangalore – 560 079. 279. Sujatha Harlapur D/o Fakirappa Shivayogiswaranagar Haveri – 581 110. 280. Ravikumar M.S. S/o Manjappa S., Marikamba Road, Sagar Shimoga District – 577 401. 281. Ramanjaneya B. S/o Bommaiah Nagasamudra P.O. Molakalmuru Tq.
- 46 -
Chitradurga District – 577535. ] 282. Rajanna B., S/o Bagaraiah, Upaleekanahalli, Sadarahalli P.O., C.N.Halli Tq., Tumkur District-572228.
Post: Chief Officers
283. Basappa B. S/o Basavarajappa 353, 8th Cross, MSR Nagar,
Bangalore-560 054. 284. Chandra Shekar B.N. D.No.47, II Stage,
Vinayaka Layout Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040. 285. Veerendra Kundgol S/o Madhav Kundgol No.298, MIG, Navanagar Hubli – 580 025. 286. Ashwini B.M. No.2879/2, “Amara Nilaya” 4th Main, 4th Cross,
MCC B Block Davanagere – 577 004. 287. Kavitha K. D/o Kempegowda No.125, 2nd Cross, 6th Block Koramangala,
Bangalore-560 095. 288. Ningappa H. Kummannanavar Alalaeri at Post, Byadgi Tq.,
Haveri District--581 106.
- 47 -
289. Mukappa Karabhimannavar S/o Mallappa Poornachandra Nilaya No.89, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross Krushinagar,
Shimoga District-577 201. 290. Munishamappa V. S/o Venkatappa Hosur, Koira P.O. Devanahalli Tq., Bangalore District – 562 110. 291. Srinivasamurthy B.K. No.129, 11th Main Road BCC Layout, II Stage Chandra Layout,
Bangalore-560 040. 292. Jayamala P. D/o Puttaswamy M.C. No.6, 17th Cross, 22nd Main Muniyappa Garden, 5th Phase J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-560 078.
Post: Asst. Treasury Officer 293. Vishwanatha K.V. C/o Seetharamaiah K.N. Rtd. Teacher, Chikkathirupathy Arasikere Tq.
Hassan District – 573 103. 294. Gopal Swamy B.N. S/o Nanjappa Beeravalli Post,
Akkihebbalu Hobli Krishnarajpet Tq.,
Mandya District-571 605.
- 48 -
295. Manjunatha Swamy S/o Hanumanthaiah Attikuppe Village & Post Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Tq. Bangalore District – 562 112. 296. Najeebulla Khan S/o Amanulla Khan H.S, Khazee Mohalla, Shikaripura Post Shimoga District – 577427. 297. Adappa S/o Shivappa No.147, Renuka Nilaya J.P.Nagar 6th Phase Bangalore – 560 078. 298. Deepak S/o Vaijanatha Adappa Post Hulsoor, Basavakalyan Tq. Bidar District – 585 416. 299. Sateesha H.Y. S/o Yogendra Gowda H.M. No.129/A, 1st Floor, 4th Main BSK 2nd Stage, Shastrinagar Bangalore – 560 028. 300. Venkateshappa N. S/o Narayanappa Sonaganahalli, Sadalli P.O. Via Peresandra,
Kolar District-562 104. 301. Rama Prasad T. S/o Krishna Sastry T., No.152, 13th ‘B’ Cross Road Yelahanka Satellite Town Bangalore-560 064.
- 49 -
302. Venugopal N.R. S/o Rajappa C., TGT Kannada Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Hondarabalu Channagiri Tq. & District – 571 117. 303. Munireddy B.M. S/o Muniswamy B.N. Shree Venkateshwara Rice Corner No.23, 60 ft. Road, J.C.Nagar M.L.Puram P.O.,
Bangalore-560 086. 304. Lokesha G.A. C/o K.P.Bhaskar Kirangur Post & Village Srirangapatna Tq.,
Mandya District 305. Prameela J. Flat No.104, 1st Floor Sharavathi Block, National Homes Housing Complex Koramangala, Bangalore-560 047. 306. Siddalinga Swamy K.B. S/o Basavalingappa K.S. Thomas Layout, Opp. P & T Quarters Nanjangud -571 301. 307. Maazuddin Khan S/o Moinuddin Khan No.1212, BEH LIC Office Nyamatbinagar, Kolar – 563 101. 308. Harinath Babu V. S/o Mudukappa V. Sadashivanagar, Siruguppa at Post Bellary District- – 583 121.
- 50 -
309. Mahesh P., S/o Puttanarasaiah 486, 6th Main, Siddarth Nagara 2nd Stage, Tyaga Marga Mysore – 570 011. 310. Thejomurthy R. S/o Rangadhamappa Hosayalanadu Post Hiriyur Taluk,
Chitradurga District-572 143. 311. Gangadhar M. Doddamani C/o D.M.Doddamani No.38, Udaynagar Bengeri, Hubli-580 023. 312. Varalakshmi D/o Krishna S., No.174, Sugar Town ‘G’ Type Mandya – 571 402. 313. Savithri H.S. D/o B.P.Shivakumar “Shiva Sadana”,
Gandhinagar, Old Town, Bhadravathi-577 301.
314. Suma T.S. D/o T.D.Subbanna Govt. Residential Women Polytechnic Vivekanada Extension Shimoga – 577 204. 315. Sulochana G.B. D/o Basavaraju G.M.,
D.No.7/510, Southern Extension, Kollegal Chamarajanagara District-571 440.
- 51 -
316. Basavaraja S., S/o Basappa S., Lecturer, Dept. of Physics
Gulbarga University Gulbarga – 585 106. 317. Jagadeesha M. S/o V.Mallaiah Dhanagere, Saragur Post,
Kollegal Tq. Chamarajanagara District – 571 440.
318. Gangaraju L. S/o Lingappa No.25, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross Hosahalli Colony, Vijayanagar Bangalore-560 040. 319. Benaka Prasad S/o S.K.Basavaraju No.43, ‘Vinaya’, Siddeshwara Layout Sidedahalli, Nagasandra Post Bangalore-560 073. 320. Sangapur M.S. S/o Ramanna Asst. Registrar of High Court No.43/1`, 2nd Cross, Malleshwaram Bangalore – 560 003. 321. Revathi Bai S. D/o Sham Singh H. D.No.14, 1st Stage, 2nd Cross Gayathripuram, Mysore-570 019. 322. Mahaboobee D/o Shaik Bandgi H.No.5-5-146/2, Near Maibusubhani
Darga Station Area,
- 52 -
Yadgir-585 202. 323. Prabhavathi S. D/o Somappa. 16, Houses Complex,
Near Post Office Shivakumaraswamy Badavane 1st Stage,
Davanagere District – 577 005. 324. Padmaja P. No.941, 7th Main New Kantharaje Urs Road Kuvempunagar, Mysore – 570 023. 325. Rukminidevi N. D/o M.Narayanaswamy No.53, 1st Main,1st Cross Yellamma Temple Road, Ganganagar, Bangalore-560 032. 326. Bhagyalatha G.S. D/o G.Sreenivasamurthy No.154/2, 1st Main Road 1st Cross,
Anantharamaiah Compound Bangalore-560018. 327. Yellappa Nemappa Hosur Village & Post Sortur Tq., Gadag District – 582 213.
Post: District Marketing Officer
328. Somashekar Nyamagouda Basappa S/o S.B. Nyamagouda Hutti Gold Mines, Hutti, Lingasugur Tq.,
Raichur District-584115.
- 53 -
329. Satish M.V. C/o Veerabhadraiah M.V. D.No.225, M.C. Layout, 6th Main 16th Cross, Vijayanagar Bangalore-560 040. 330. Sharabhendraiah B.M. S/o Basaiah B.M. Mustur Post, Jagalur Taluk Davanagere District – 577 528. 331. Mahesha T.A. S/o T.Annaiah, C/o S.Erappa D.No.557, Near Naidu Work Shop Gowramma Compound,
N.R. Extension Hassan – 573 201. 332. VineshA R.J. S/o Jaya Shankar R.P. D.No.27, II Main, VII Cross Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore-570 008. 333. Guruprasad K.H. S/o Honnappa K.B. 1425, 7th Cross, Thyagaraja Road K.R.Mohalla, Mysore – 570 024. 334. Kodi Gowda K. S/o Kodi Gowda Research Scholar, R.No.107 P.G. Hostel, UAS GKVK Bangalore-560 065. 335. Ramesh V. S/o Venkataramanappa O/o D.D.P.I. Kalasipalyam Bangalore South District Bangalore-560 002.
- 54 -
336. Kumaraswamy R.M. Ramachandrapura at Post Tiptur Taluk,
Tumkur District – 572 202. 337. Khaleel Sab G. S/o Dodda Gudu Sab Hirekabbigere,
Basavanashivana Kere Post, Chitradurga District – 577 541. 338. Nagesh K.M. S/o Mancha Setty No.584, Swarnasandra Mandya-571 402. 339. Doreswamy K.C. S/o Chikkamade Gowda M. Kiragasur, Belakavadi Post Malavalli Tq.,
Mandya District – 571 417. 340. Satish T.E. S/o T.P.Eswarachar No.201, H-Block, 4th Main,
2nd Cross, Ramakrishnanagar, Mysore – 570 023.
341. Pushpa D.R. 74/D, 17th Cross Road,
4th Stage, 4th Block, Basaveswaranagar
Bangalore – 560 079. 342. Manjunatha M. Sai Adithiya 2924/7, 2nd Cross,
Kumaraswamy Layout 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 078.
- 55 -
343. Holbasappa Balegar S/o Tirakappa Balegar H.No.47, Yamakka Layout Near Kudenahalli,
Ramamurthynagar Bangalore-560 016. 344. Gayathri T.P. Chetana Institute of Management No.3301/A & B MCCB Block Opp. Bapuji High School Davanagere – 577 004. 345. Suma M.V. D/o Venkate Gouda T., No.92/C, 177/9 & 10,
11 B Cross, 30th Main Road, 1st Stage, J.P.Nagar
Bangalore-560078. 346. Fareedunisa Begum D/o Subhan M.A. H.No.194, Vidyanagar Colony MSK Mill Road, Gulbarga-585 103. 347. Nanjundaswamy M. S/o Maraiah, 2nd Street Ramasamudra Town, Chamarajanagar-571313. 348. Rajanna V. C/o Venkatachalaiah No.23, ‘Sneha’, Devaraja Urs Road 9th Cross, Saraswathipuram Tumkur – 05. 349. Mohan C.H. S/o Hanumanthappa A., ‘Srinivasa Nilaya’,
Hosamane Circle, Bhadravathi,
- 56 -
Shimoga District – 577 301. 350. Rani H.C.M.
D/o Channappa D.No.3118/13, NES Colony Hunsur, Mysore District – 571 105.
351. Eswara N. S/o Nanjundappa Sri Raghavendra Nilaya
No.7, 2nd Cross, Kanakadasa Layout Lingarajapura, Bangalore-560 084.
352. Shylaja M.V.
D/o Veeraiah, Retd. D.D.A. Maruthi Krupa, B.M.Road, P.W.D. Extn., Ramanagaram Bangalore – 571 511.
Post: Director of Food & Civil 353. Ashok
At Post Honwad Bijapura Tq., Bijapura-586 130.
354. Arunkumar Sangavi
S/o Basavantappa Prashanth Nagar (B) Opp. Jawali English Medium School Gulbarga – 585 105.
Post: Asst. Chief Auditors
355. Chidanand Bandu Kumati Lecturer in History Quarter No.2,
Lingaraj College Campus College Road, Belgaum-590 001.
- 57 -
356. Siddanagouda N. Neelappanavar S/o Ninganagoud D. Neelappanavar At Post Bilgi Bagalkot District – 587 116. 357. Krishna Murthy H.E. S/o K.H. Erappa Gowda No.11, Gurukrupa Basaveshwara Layout Nagashettyhalli,
Bangalore-560 094. 358. Narasimhamurthy K. No.851, 45-Cross, 80 ft. Main Road Kumaraswamy Layout 2nd Stage Bangalore-560 078. 359. Madegowda H.M. Kadujakkasandra Village Kaggalahalli Post, Kanakapura Tq. Bangalore District – 562 112. 360. Mayanna Gowda K. S/o K.Krishnappa No.13/2, Suryodaya,
11th Main Road Kalappa Block, Srinagar Bangalore – 560 050. 361. Maheshwarappa V. S/o T.Veerappa Anugraha, Near RMC Compound 14th Cross, 60 Ft. Road Vinobhanagar, Shimoga-577 204. 362. Sannatangiyavar Basanagoud At Mudenagudi, Post Hullur Tq. Ron, Gadag District – 582220.
- 58 -
363. Muralidhara K. No.2184/A, 8th Main, E Block II Stage, Rajajinagar Bangalore-560 010. 364. Vinay Vithal Biradar S/o Vithal Biradar Kalyannagar 9th Cross Dharwad – 580 007. 365. Rudramuni B.K. C/o H.D.Keshava Murthy 150, 2nd Main, 8th Cross Agrahara Dasarahalli Bangalore-560 079. 366. Sreedhara T. C/o V.Jagan Mohan Rao Sadashivanagar, Siraguppa P.O., Bellary District – 583 121. 367. Rajesh M.B. S/o Bhadrashettappa Motaganahalli, Magadi Taluk Bangalore District – 562 127. 368. Allabaksha Bijapur
Post Golasangi, Bagewadi District Bijapur – 586 231. 369. Krishnappa B.L. S/o Lakshmaiah Chikkaveeraiahnapalya Sira Gate, Tumkur District – 572 106. 370. Prabha L.M. D/o Munikamaiah 960, 1st Main, Divandrapalya Gokul II Stage,
- 59 -
Bangalore-560 054. 371. Hemavathi M.N. D/o Nanjundegowda Late Maruvanahalli,
Sindhaghatta Post K.R.Pete Taluk,
Mandya District – 571 426. 372. Basawaraja S/o Doddappa At Post Konkal, Shahapur Tq. Gulbarga District – 585 355. 373. Vijendra Wodeyar S/o Revanaiah Wodeyar Advocate, Near New Court Complex Chikkanayakanahalli Tumkur District. 374. Shailendra Shettennavar S/o Balachandra Shettennavar
Kusum SYNO 51/3B Plot No.4, Shahu Nagar Belgaum – 590 010. 375. Bhavana S. D/o Shankaranarayan HNo.142, Nanda Gokula Jakkur Layout, Jakkur Bangalore-560 064. 376. Roopa Rani T.S., C/o Mariyappa C., No.142/1, 4th Main, 9th Cross Chamrajpet, Bangalore-560 018. 377. Devendrappa D. S/o Obaiah K., Gattihosahalli, Hosadurga Via
- 60 -
Chitradurga District – 577 527. 378. Yashodha M. D/o Munireddy, No.40,
2nd Cross, LIC Colony 3rd Block, Jayanagar Bangalore-560 011. 379. Sumathi S. D/o Siddagangaiah No.678, VI Main, II Cross
Vijayanagar, Bangalore – 560 040. 380. Maheswarappa K. S/o Kanakappa K. Devara Marikunte P.O., Nalllurahalli,
Challakere Taluk-577 538. 381. Shashidhar J.E. S/o Erappa Sri Lakshmi Krupa 12th Cross, S.I.T. Extension Tumkur – 572 103. 382. Shivanna K. No.15/26, 8th Cross,
Maruthi Extension Vyalikaval, Bangalore-560 003. 383. Kumar Hanumanthappa H.D. S/o Haveri Durugappa No.1288, 1st Floor, Road Side 10th Main, Vijayanagar
Bangalore-560040.
384. Syed Anjeeda Praveen S/o Ameer Pasha D.No. LIG 163, Gangothri Layout Mysore – 570 009.
- 61 -
385. Sathyavathi M. D/o Muninarayana R. No.41, 3rd Cross,
Magadi Main Road, HVR Layout, Bangalore-560 079.
386. Veena R 1691, Besuge
Anjaneya Temple Street Kengeri Upanagar Bangalore-560 060. 387. Renuka G. D/o Gopala Krishnappa Kumbalgod, Kengeri Hobli Bangalore-560 074 388. Vittal Sheregar M.H. S/o Nagappa Sheregar Thagarse Village, Byndoor Kundapura Taluk,
Udupi District-576214. 389. Shanthakumari G.B. D/o Basavaraju P.S.,
No.2C 302, ISRO Apartment Airport Road, Domlur
Bangalore-560 071. 390. Rekha D. D/o Durgappa P., 25/1, 2nd Cross, Krishnamma Garden Anjaneya Block, BensonTown Bangalore-560 046
Post: Assistant Commissioner 391. Harish Kumar K. S/o Late Bhoja Hegde M.,
- 62 -
Harikrupa Post, Hermunde Karakala Taluk, Udupi-574101. 392. Ravikumar M.R. S/o Ramakrishna Gowda Moderahally at P.O., Kolar District – 563 101. 393. Rajesh Gowda M.B., No.85, 1st Main, 2nd Stage Arakere Mico Layout,
Bannerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. 394. Mahantesh Bilagi Bavikatti Plot 1st Cross, Srinagar, Dharwad – 580 003. 395. Ramesh K.N. No.419, 19th Cross,
1st & 3rd Block East Jayanagara, Bangalore-560 011. 396. Patil Yalagouda Shivanagouda Suldhal at P.O., Gokak Taluk Belgaum District-591101. 397. Honnamba S. No.219, 7th A Main RPC Layout, 2nd Stage Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040. 398. Latha R. No.3862, 10th Cross Gayathrinagar,
Bangalore-560 021. 399. Srinivas K. No.1593, 2nd Main, 7th Cross
- 63 -
Govindrajnagar, Corporation Circle, Bangalore-560 079.
400. Archana M.S. No.96/D, Manasara Road,
Ittegegud, Mysore – 570 010. 401. Dayananda K.A., DB32 PWD Quarters Kaval Byrasandra, R.T.Nagar Bangalore-560 032. 402. Kashinath Powar No.14, Shrilaxmivenkateshwara Krupa Channabasaveshwara Nagar Dharwad – 580 007. 403. Rajendra K. No.631, 3rd Cross,
Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore – 560 086. 404. Jagadeesha G., Malalagadde Village & Post Sorab Taluk,
Shimoga District – 577 434 405. Sangappa Ward No.1, D.No.504/3 Near Honyal Desai House Killa, Bagalkot – 587 101. 406. Janaki K.M. FDA, Govt. 1st Grade College Belur Post, Hassan District – 573 115. 407. Sathyabhama C. D/o Chittanna SDA, O/o DCCT (A&R) Malnad Division
- 64 -
B.H.Road, Shimoga- 577 201. 408. Rajamma A. No.195/1, 2nd Floor, 15th Cross Shankarnag Road, Domlur Bangalore -560 071. 409. Latha Kumari K.S. C/o Rudrappa T. Branch Manager, Indian Bank Varattanapalli, Dharmapuri Tamilnadu – 635 120. 410. Zehera Naseem Plot No.30, Bhagwati Nagar Jewargi II Cross, Gulbarga – 585102.
Post: Asst. Controllers 411. Samina Meraj D/o Mushthaq Mohiyuddin Optic Times, Near Bus Stand Road Hassan – 573 201. 412. Archana B. Kamalanabhan,
No.417, A-1, Krishna Block, National Games Housing Complex,
Koramangala, Bangalore-560 047.
Post: Asst. Commr. of Commercial Tax
413. Satheesha B.C. Extn. Officer (Animal Husbandry) Veterinary Hospital, Kumta N.K. District – 581 343. 414. Veerendra Patil H. Kirana Nilaya, Opp. Z.P. Office Basavanagar, Hospet Road
- 65 -
Harapanahalli P.O., Davanagere District – 583 131.
415. Nagaraju B.M. Bettegowdanadoddi Narayanapura P.O.,
Kanakapura Taluk Bangalore District. 416. Savitha S.G. No.2186, S.B.M.Road Turuvekere,
Tumkur District-572 227. 417. Ramanujayya S. No.60, 3rd Cross, Cholurapalya Magadi Road, Bangalore-560 023. 418. Manjula M.R. D/o Rajashekar R., No.2734, Sree Nilaya Shankaranarayana Swamy Temple Street Chamundipura, Mysore-570 004. 419. Suma M.D. No.247, LIG, Kuvempunagar Hassan-573 201. 420. Sukanya Nayak C/o Nayak No.345, Narayanpur Dharwad – 580 008.
Post: Asst. Labour Commissioners
421. Ravikumar S.B. D.No.408, 13th Cross, 3rd Main T.K.Layout, Kuvempunagar Mysore – 570 023.
- 66 -
422. Umesha A.H. DB 76 PWD Quarters Sulthanpalya, Kaval Byrasandra Bangalore-560 032. 423. Gireesha S. Patil Near Canara Bank, Annigeri Dharwad District – 582 201 424. Sreevalli A.J. No.746, 10th Main Raghavendraswamy Math Road, T.K.Layout, Mysore-570009. 425. Venkatesh A. Shindihatti, H.No.1454, Laxmi Nagar, Mudalagi at Post, Gokak Taluk, Belgaum District-591312.
Post: Dy. Superintendet of Police
426. Joshi Srinatha Mahadeva Ainapur Post, Athani Tq., Belgaum District. 427. Vedamurthy C.B. C/o Puttamma Retd. Teacher, No.1540 15th Cross, 1st Main
Vinobhanagar, Davanagere-577 006.
428. Shantharaju K.M. Fisheries Extension Officer
Fisheries Farmers Development Agency Shimoga – 577 201. 429. Hanumantharaya S/o Basavaraja Hospeti
- 67 -
H.No.10-256, Konded Galli Brahmpur, Gulbarga-585 103. 430. Devaraja D. S/o Dyavarappa Koraganahalli, Maduva Hobli Kolar Taluk -563101. 431. Chandrakanth M.V. No.1308, Ramdev Garden Kacharakanahalli,
Bangalore-560 084 432. Siri Gowri D.R. C/o Jayaprkash, No.436
‘Menaka’, 6th Cross, 11th Main, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore-560003.
433. Dharani Devi K. W/o Aravind Malagatti
No.P-7, Professors Quarters Manasagangotri, Mysore-570 006.
434. Savitha S., No.408, 1st Cross, 1st Main
Indiranagar 1st Stage, Bangalore-560 038.
435. Babasaheb Kodabagi H.No.9, CMC Colony,
Irrahimpur Bijapur – 586 101. 436 Madhura Veena M.L., No.676, 12th Main, 12th Cross, T.K. Layout 4th Stage Mysore- 570 009
- 68 -
437. Abdul Ahmed C/o Vishwas Metal Works Katchi Masjid Building,
Azizuddin Road, Bandur, Mangalore-575 001.
438. Girish S. D.No.3, 1st Main, 3rd Cross 3rd Block, 3rd Phase, Near Apex Bank Basavesharanagar,
Bangalore-560 079. 439. Puttamadaiah S/o Madaiah Alias Sannaiah Hosakukkur, Talkad Hobli T.N.Pura Taluk,
Mysore District-571 122.
Post: Asst. Commandants
440. Ramakrishna Dehalli Post, Yallapur Taluk,
Uttarakannada District-581 359. 441. Prasad B.M. S/o Basavaiah B. No.16, Kaivalya Marga
Siddartha Nagar 2nd Stage, Mysore – 570011.
Post: Dist. Officer for SC & ST Welfare
442. Arun Purtado
Shir to Star, Madanthyar Post S.K. District – 574 224.
443. Allabakash M.S. Asst. Master, Govt. High School Santhekallahalli Village & Post Kaivara Hobli, Kolar-563 125.
- 69 -
444. Banda Nawaaz Gesudaraz Retd. H.M., Netaji Mohalla Deodurg Post,
Raichur District-584 111.
445. Rajesh G. Gowda No.1617, ‘Classic’ K Block
Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore – 570 023.
446. Kallesha In-charge Head Master Govt. High School, Hiresindagi Koppal Tq. & District – 583 231. 447. Uma Saligoudar C/o Dr. S.V.Santi Veterinary Officer,
Veterinary Hospital Red Cross Road,
Dharwad-580 008. 448. Sumaiya Roohi No.3314, Kumandan Mohalla Ramanagaram Town Bangalore Rural District – 571511. 449. Nataraju H. S/o Hanumanthaiah Chamanahalli, Maddur Taluk Mandya District – 571 429. 450. Mulla Sabeer Ahmed C/o M.M.Patewwegar, Sakaf Roza Atani Galli, Bijapur-586 101. 451. Prathibha S. D/o Somasundara B.K., M.D. No.34/A, M Block,
- 70 -
Kuvempunagar Mysore-570 023. 452. Mayadevi Galagali D/o M.A. Galagali Halasangi Post, Indi Tq., Bijapur District – 586 207.
Post: Dy. Director of Food & Civil Supplies 453. Mantye Swamy S/o Mantya Byranatha B.M.Halli Post, Kollegal Taluk Chamarajanagara District-571 439.
Post: Tahasildars
454. Rajendra Prasad M.N. S/o M.J.Neelakanth, No.73/3, Kote Street Saligrama, K.R.Nagar, Mysore-571604. 455. Rudresha S.N. S/o Nagendrappa S. Kodagavalli Post Holalkere Taluk
Chitradurga District – 577 523. 456. Prashant Nalwar C/o C.B.Hadimani P & T Colony,
Near Railway Station Haveri – 581 110. 457. Prasanna V. K.R.Lingappa Building, PMK Road Thyagarajanagar, Tarikere Chickmagalore District-577 228.
- 71 -
458. Amaresh H. C/o R.Ramesh H.No.33, Vinayaka Layout 1st Stage, Basaveshwarnagar Bangalore-560 079. 459. Shankareppa Wanikyal
Head Master, Govt. High School Hattikuni, Yadagir Tq., Gulbarga District – 585202 460. Puttaraju V. S/o Veeramaraiah Manne at Post, Tyamagondlu Via Nelamangala Taluk Bangalore Rural- 562 132. 461. Nagendra F. Honnalli At Post Dhummawad Kalaghatagi Tq.,
Dharwad District-580 114. 462. Lokanath R. No. 660, 3rd Main,
Aravind Nagar, Mysore – 570 023. 463. Sharanabasappa Koteppagol C/o S.R.Patil, No.10-585,
Near Venkavva Market Brahmpur, Gulbarga-585 103. 464. Raghavendra V. D.No.51, 16th Cross, 33rd Main J.P.Nagar 5th Phase, Bangalore – 560 078. 465. Govinda Reddy C/o Siddarameshwara
Margadarshi 10th Cross, Kalyan Nagar
- 72 -
Dharwad-580 007. 466. Maruthi M.P. S/o Panchaksharappa Kyadiggere Post Chitradurga Taluk & District-577 524. 467. Nagaraju C. No.348, 1st Floor 15th Main, 1st Block, III Stage Basaveshwaranagara Bangalore-560 079. 468. Shankaragoud Somanal At PO Jammaladinni Tq.-Muddebihal,
Bijapur District-586 245. 469. Elisha Andrews S/o V.Andrews DYSP No.9/30,
Karamachand Layout Hennur Main Road,
Lingarajapuram Bangalore-560 084. 470. Yogeshwara S. Malavagoppa Post Shimoga – 577 222. 471. Krishna G. No.91, 3rd Main, South of
Kumbara Koppal III Stage Gokulam, V.V.Mohalla, Mysore – 570 002.
472. Ramesh Desai At Basapur, Yalavatti Post Hangal Tq.,
Haveri District-581 203
- 73 -
473. Mahesh Karjagi S/o Bhimashankar Kalyan Nagar, Sindagi, Bijapur District – 586 128. 474. Basavaraj Somannavar Yadahalli Post, Bilagi Tq.,
Bagalkot District-577 117.
475. Manjunath C. No.304, 1st Main Road Byataranayapura,
Bangalore-560 092. 476. Iliyas Ahmed Isamadi Kharadi Mohalla, P.B.Road
Behind Krishna Café Hubli – 580 028.
477. Venkateshaiah C/o Govindaraju Nellukunte, Anatharahalli P.O. Doddaballapura Taluk Bangalore Rural District – 561 203. 478. Sheelavant Shivakumar
Shri Gurunivas No.4-67, Prashant Nagar (B)
Rajapur Extn. Area Gulbarga – 585 105. 479. Sharanappa B. Sathyampet at Laxmipur P.O., Shorapur Tq.,
Gulbarga District-585 224. 480. Shiva Swamy B. Gopalapura Village & Post Jayapura Hobli
- 74 -
Mysore Tq. & District – 570 008. 481. Pujar Veeramallappa S/o P.Veerabhadrappa Near Veerana Temple,
Old Bus Stand Harapanahalli – 583 131. 482. Shidramappa Biradar Chavadihal P.O., Indi Taluk Bijapur District – 586 117. 483. Swetha G.N. No. 96/A, 42nd Cross, III Main 8th Block, Jayanagar Bangalore – 560 082. 484. Nagaraja G.V. Gunjur Via Varthur Post Bangalore South-560 087. 485. Balakrishnappa E. Myakalurahalli P.O., Hiriyur Taluk Chitradurga District – 572 144. 486. Krishna Kumar C.J. S/o C.S.Janardhana Rao (Tailor) Khazi Mohalla, Behind Ideal College Chitradurga – 577 501. 487. Shylaja V.R. C/o S.H. Karigowda Patel Kalegowda Street, Saligrama K.R.Nagara Tq.
Mysore District-571604. 488. Shoba Y.R. New No.18, 1st Floor,
Lakshmi Nivas, 14th Cross, Swimming Pool Extension
- 75 -
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003.
489. Krishna Murthy H.K. Mandagalale, Kanle Post Sagar Taluk,
Shimoga District-577430. 490. Jnanesh H.,
‘Sri Gurukrupa’, 10th Cross, S.S.Puram, Tumkur-572102.
491. Rupashree S. No.811, L.N.Colony,
1st B Main Road Yeswanthapura,
Bangalore-560 022. 492. Jyothi K. No.12, E Cross, 3rd Main, Byatarayanapura New Extension Mysore Road,
Bangalore-560 026. 493. Nanjundegowda Halagapura, Bandalli Post Kollegala Taluk,
Chamarajanagara District-571439. 494. Roopa M. No.54, 3rd Cross, Raghavanagar
Bangalore-560026. 495. Manjunatha C.N.,
S/o Late Narayanappa C.M., Channakeshavapura, Harikattigenahalli, Chintamani Tq., Kolar District-563128.
- 76 -
496. Geeta Koulgi,
D/o I.H.Koulgi, Jorapur Peth Bijapur Near Mallayya’s Temple, Bijapur-586101.
497. Prajna Ammembala
C/o A.V.Navada, Professors Quarters, Kannada University Campus Vidyaranya, Bellary-583276.
498. Chethanashri H.E.,
D/o Ere Gowda D.K., No.15, Chethana Vishwamanava Double Road, Kuvempunagara, Mysore-570009.
499. Bajantri Shivappa Yallappa
C/o Revadi Near Hanuman Temple Ramapur Site, Saundatii Tq., Belgaum District-591126.
500. Poornima P.V.,
D/o Venkateshachar P.B., Paragi Garden, Manchenahally Post, Gowribidanur Tq., Kolar District-561211.
501. Bheema Naik L. No.MC-16, BEL Colony Jalahalli, Bangalore-560 013. 502. Thippeswamy N., Administrative Officer, Kannada Book Authority, Kannada Bhavan, 1st Floor J.C.Road, Bangalore-560 002.
- 77 -
503. Krishna Murthy T.N. D.No.128, VII B Main,
III Block, IV Stage, Basaveshwaranagara
Bangalore-560 079. 504. Vasantha Kumar P. No.1013, “Krishna Sahadev Nilaya” 39th Cross, II Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore-560 010. 506. Sangeetha Gajanana Bhat “Anant” No.3943/3, Opp. Anjaneya Temple,
Mysore Road, Hunsur, Mysore District – 571 105.
507. Venkatesha B., No.9/1, I Main,
Muniramanna Block Ganganagar,
Bangalore-560 032. 508. Shylaja Priyadarshini A.M., D.No.67/1, Devagangotri Shankar Mutt Road Shanakarapuram,
Bangalore-560 004 509. Somaling Gopal Harijan Govt. Junior Technical School Gulbarga – 585 102. 510. Babu M.S.N.
S/o Sannadoddaiah H.No.1235/1,
Housing Board Colony K.R. Extension, Tiptur Tumkur District – 572 202.
- 78 -
511. Ravi Kumar M., S/o Madaiah M., D.No.3-341, Cauvery Road Kollegal – 571 440. 512. Mangala S.M. D/o Munilakkappa Mallur Post, Sidlaghatta Taluk Kolar District – 562 102. 513. Rajashree Jainapur C/o H.M.Dharmakar Sidhartha Housing Colony Opp. Fire Fighter, Afzalpur Taluk Bijapur – 586 101. 514. Murshaduddin L. Killedar C/o A.H.Asad, Azad Nagar,
Behind Vanitha Seva Samaj Dharwad – 580001. 515. Lokesh P.N. Sangameshwara Nilaya Basappa Divatar Nagara Koppal – 583 231. 516. Kareegowda S/o Siddegowda Chikkonahalli, Kalagatta Post Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District-571419. 517. Asha S. No.320, 1st Main,
8th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034.
518. Chandramma Y.N. C/o Nanjegowda Yalanahalli, Hirisave Hobli
- 79 -
Channarayapatna Taluk Hassan District – 573 124. 519. Suma R. C/o Srikantegowda No.862, 6th Main Road Raghavendra Block, Srinagara Bangalore-560 050. 520. Krishnaveni B.V.
No.349, 2nd Cross, 1st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 011.
521. Mohammad Zubera N. Asst. Master, Govt. High School Kacheri, Hirekerur Taluk,
Haveri District-581 120. 522. Mathai K. D-39, Mangala Gangotri Post Konaje, Mangalore-574 199. 523. Yashodha R. No.528, 1st Cross, III Stage IV Phase, Basaveshwaranagara Bangalore-560 079. 524. Nagaraja Setty R. No.7, MIG I Main, IV Phase 707 C.H.S. Layout,
Yelahanka New Town Bangalore – 560 064. 525. Premila M.K.
C/o Mahadevappa K. #2-224/4, Jagat Gulbarga – 585 102. 526. Usha Rani N.C. No.2345, 9th Main, E-Block
- 80 -
Rajajinagar 2nd Stage Bangalore-560 010. 527. Saroja B.B., C/o J.K.Kurubar At Post Naregal Hangal Tq., Haveri District – 581 148. 528. Keshavaraja K. C/o Hanumayya, No.11, 3rd Cross, Dubashipalya G.K.Farm, R.V.College Post Bangalore-560 059. 529. Renuka A.C. C/o N.Krishna No.27/1, 16th Cross, Sampige Road Malleshwaram,
Bangalore-560 003. 530. Nagaraja V. S/o Vasanthappa
No.279, Narasipura Layout Vidyaranyapura Post Bangalore-560 097.
531. Thabassum Zahera C/o Meer Taj Ahmed Hussain Land Lord Holavanahalli Koratagere Taluk,
Tumkur District – 572 101. 532. Sangappa Siddappa Hullur At Post Bidarakundi,
Muddebihal Taluk Bijapur District – 586 245. 533. Arunaprabha H.S. C/o Govinda Poojary “Bagirathi Nilaya”, No.8
- 81 -
Priyadarshini Layout, Devasandra, K.R.Puram, Bangalore – 560 094.
534. Mallikarjun H.No.9-5-721, Adarsha Colony – I Near Kendriya Vidyalaya Bidar – 585 401.
Post: Asst. Director of Land Records 535. Kusumalatha P.S. C/o Devaraj, No.19A,
Bangalore Diary Quarters Dr. M.H.Marigowda Road Bangalore – 560 029.
Post: Commercial Tax Officers 536. Ranganatha T. S/o Thammaiah T.
Ground Floor, Sai Bajan Mandir Keshavapura Old Town Bhadravathi, Shimgoa District – 577 301.
537. Venkatesha Murthy T.S. D.No.205, II Cross, CFRTI Layout Bogadi II State (South) Mysore – 570 006. 538. Phaniraj D.A., C/o Sharadadevi Doddabele Post, Nelamangala Taluk Bangalore District – 562 132. 539. Bharath Kumar Hegde S/o S.K. Hegde
D.No.2952, 13th B Main Road RPC Layout, Vijayanagar II Stage
- 82 -
Bangalore-560 040. 540. Sharada S.J. C/o D.R.Revanasiddappa Tilaknagar 2nd Cross Shimoga – 577 201. 541. Linganna Kuchabal C/o H.G.Gundalli J.E. BDO Quarters, Adhyapak Nagar Hubli – 580 032. 542. Sreenivasu R.B. S/o Basavegowda Rangapura, Horeyala Post Gundlupet Taluk Chamarajanagara – 571 109. 543. Reshma V. No.34, Sathyanarayana Layout 3rd Stage, 4th Block, W.C.Road Basaveshwaranagara Bangalore-560 079. 544. Chandrakant M. Lokare C/o N.K.Honnunagar Devikrupa Building, 10th Cross Kalyana Nagar, Dharwad-580 007. 545. Patil Shivalingamma C/o M.S.Ghante No.1-465, Shailesh Nivas Opp.V.G.Womens College Old Jajee Chail, Gulbarga-585 102. 546. Kusuma Kumari S. No.705, 7th B Main HRBR Layout 1st Block, Kalyana Nagar,
Bangalore-560 043.
- 83 -
547. Sadashiv Rajshekhar Patil Kandagal at Post, Bilagi Tq.
Bagalkot District – 587 116. 548. Shabana Thabassum D/o Syed Samiulla H.No.1100, Bethamangala Old town Bangarpet Tq.,
Kolar District – 563 116.
Post: Dy. Superintendent of Excise 549. Giri J. C/o Harish C. D.No.838, 5th Cross, 5th Main M.C. Layout, Vijayanagar Bangalore-560 040. 550. Annappa E.
C/o Ramamani No.49, 2nd Floor, Ashtagrama Layout KHB Colony, Police Station Road Bangalore-560 079. 551. Nagesha S/o Lingegowda Alathur, Gundlupet Taluk
Chamarajanagara District – 571 109. 552. Nagarajappa S. S/o B.M.Shivappa Basavatty
Santhemaranahalli Post Chamarajanagara Taluk & District-571115. 553. Jagadish C. No.335, 2nd Main, 2nd Block 3rd Stage, 3rd Phase, Banashankari Bangalore-560 085.
- 84 -
554. Sumithra K.K., C/o Ningaraju
No.DA-17, KHB Quarters, KHB Road
Kavalbyrasandra, Bangalore-560 032. 555. Gopalakrishna Gowda P. Poila House, Nekkilady (Vill) Mardala Post, Puttur Taluk D.K.District – 574 230.
Post: Labour Officers
556. Ravi Kumar K.L. No.734, 7th Main Road Mahalakshmi Layout Bangalore-560 086. 557. Thammanna A.C. S/o Channegowda Alamshettahalli,
Athagur Hobli Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District – 571 433. 558. Mohammed Zaheer Bhasha C/o Imtiaz Ahmed Khan Advocate
No.19, KHBCS Colony, 5th Cross
Karnataka Layout 1st Stage Bangalore-560 079. 559. Vinutha N.,
No.29, 1st Main, IV Cross, Mariyappanapalya, Jnanabharathi Post, Bangalore-560056.
- 85 -
560. Somanna S/o Hanuma Naik
Devaradoddi (V), Averahalli Post
Ramanagaram Taluk Bangalore District. 561. Meena Patil C/o Chandra Shekhar Patil Editor, Sankramana Jyothi Layout Yelachenahalli,
Bangalore-560 078. 562. Devaraju M.N. S/o Kamalamma Makali Post, Channapatna Taluk Bangalore Rural District – 562 108. 563. Mohammed Basheer Ansari C/o Mohammed Obedulla Retd. Urdu Teacher,
Munshi Ramdas Compound Chitradurga – 577 501.
564. Arathi State Bank of Hyderabad Deodurg Taluk,
Raichur District 565. Veena S.R. No.90(1), Siddeshwara Nilaya Krishnakrupa,
Behind SC/ST Hostel Kuvempunagar,
Tumkur-572 102.
Post: Employment Officers 566. Manjunatha K.D. Kelagalale Koppal
- 86 -
Mallipattana Post, Arakalgud Tq., Hassan District – 573 102. 567. Amarnath T. H.No.49, Anoop Nivas 2nd Cross, 13th Main,
K.G.Halli, Jalahalli West, Bangalore-560 015.
Post: Asst. Director of Food and Civil Supplies
568. Kumuda Girish No.1617, K Block,
Ramakrishna Nagar Mysore – 570 023. 569. Madhusudhan K.P. S/o Palaiah K.P. Kodagavallihatty Post Holalkere Taluk Chitradurga District – 577 523. 570. Sadashiv S/o Ramu Mali Kumbaragutti at
Hanamapur Post Athani Taluk,
Belgaum District – 591 232. 571. Govindappa C. S/o Chinnappa Kothur Mittoor Post Davaraysamudra Via Kolar District – 563 127. 572. Nagaraja L.C. B.H.Road, Paramanna Layout Nelamangala Taluk Bangalore Rural District-562 123.
- 87 -
Post: Asst.Registrar of Co-op. Society 573. Ganji Dattatraya 8/3, Lattipeth Old Hubli Hubli – 580 024. 574. Praveen B. Nayak Ambikanagar P.O.,
Kavoor Kullur Kavoor Road Mangalore - 575015 575. Ayesha Haque D.No.4604, 4th Cross St. Mayrs Road, N.R.Mohalla Mysore-570007. 576. Umesha G., S/o Gattaiah P.,
Surammanahally Post Molakalmuru Tq., Chitradurga District-577 535 577. Venkatesha N. No.31, 2nd Cross Byappanahalli Extension, Indiranagar Post Bangalore – 560 038
Post: Asst. Director of Youth Service
578. Raghu G.P. S/o Putte Gowda G.A. Boovanahally (V) & Post Hassan Tq. & District – 573201
Post: District Marketing Officers
579. Shreehari B.R. D.No. 636, K.R. Puram
- 88 -
Hassan - 573201
Post: Asst. Superintendent Prisons
580. Ananda P.V. C/o K.M. Gurumallaiah
No. 1071, 27th Main, Jayanagar 9th Block Bangalore – 560 069 581. Krishna Kumar No. 224, Kabir Seva Sadan Gulpet, Kolar – 563113 582. Somashekar M. No. 11/5, 1st Main Road Azad Nagar, Chamarajpet Bangalore – 560 018
Post: Assistant Commissioner
583. Praveen Kumar G.L. S/o Lokeshappa G.R. Pondomatti at Chennagiri Tq., Davanagere District – 577213 584. Vijayamahantesh B., Danammanavar At Post Ranatur Shirahatti Tq., Gadag District- 582120 585. Govindareddy C/o Shanti Niwas Basavanagar Hanumasagar Road Ilkal Post, Bagalkot District-587125 586. Prabhuling Kavalikatti No. C/142, Hidkal Dam Post
- 89 -
Hukkeri Tq., Belgaum District-591107 587. Vyshali M.L. Shetty Koppa Post N.R. Pura Tq., Chickmagalur District-577134 588. Ramya S., No. 77, 4th Main Maruthinagar, Mourya School
Kamakshipalya Bangalore – 560079. 589. Balachandra S.N. No. 159, RML Road Sollepura at P.O., K.R. Pet Mandya Tq.-571423 590. Bharathi D., W/o H.P.Mahadevappa Bhamana,
# 52, Cheernahalli Road Kuvempu Nagar, K.R. Nagar Town Mysore District-571 602 591. Yogeesha A.M. No.786, Anugraha
2nd Cross, Near Town Club K.R. Pet, Mandya Taluk-571426
592. Shiva Prasad P.R.
No. 825, 24th Main 2nd Phase, JP Nagar, Bangalore - 560 078 593. Gangadhara Swamy G.M. Ganapathihally Chunchankuppe Post,
Bangalore South District Bangalore Urban District- 562130
- 90 -
594. Vidya Kumari K., No. 710, Krishna Block National Games Village Koramangala, Bangalore– 560047. 595. Nagendra Prasad K., Kuvempu Layout Mulsoge Kushal Nagar & Post Coorg District- 571234 596. Kumara Rangenally, Doddenahally, Nittur Post, Salagame Hobli Hassan Taluk & District-573219 597. Venkatesh T., Mandibyadarahalli Hanabe Post Doddaballapura Tq., Bangalore Rural District- 561203 598. Shilpa RB Plot – 227
Opp. Nijalingappa Dental College Banashankari Colony Jayanagar, Gulbarga-585105 599. Gayithri K.M. W/o Prasannakumar K.M. 374, Bandhavya Swamy Vivekananda Marga
Kaverinagar, Mandya - 571401 600. Poornima B.R. W/o Sudharshan C.S. No. 1/329, Gurukrupa Nilaya V.V. Road, K.R. Nagara Mysore District- 571602
- 91 -
601. Jayavibhava Swamy S/o Late C.M.Yareseeme No. 597, 7th Main, 2nd Cross Vijayanagar Bangalore - 560 040 602. Vijaya Kumar C., No. 115, Prachina Nilaya B.Narayanapura, White Field Road Bangalore – 560016
Post: District Officers for B.C.s 603. Prabhakar H.G., Hangaravally at Post Chickmagalur Tq. & District- 577111 604. Pradeep B.S. BB69, KHB Qtrs., Kavalbyrasandra RT Nagar, Bangalore – 560 032 605. Rajappa N., Village Joldhal Post Channagiri Tq., Davanagere District- 577213
Post: Deputy Superintendent of Police
606. Sreedhara T., C/o V.Jaganmohan Rao Sadhasiva Nagar Siruguppa P.O., Bellary District- 583121 607. Ashwini M., No. 381, Narayanappa Garden Main Road, White Filed Bangalore - 560 066
- 92 -
608. Prakasha Gowda A.N., S/o Ningegowda A.B. Halli, Maddur Tq.,
K.M.Doddi, Maddur District-571422 609. Jinendra Khanagavi C/o K.V.Khanagavi
Post: Manoli, Saundatti Tq. Belgaum District-591117 610. Basavaraju S., S/o Siddappa B.S. Annehal at post Chitradurga Tq. & District 611. Rashmi J.K.
No. 1630, IV Cross Hosakeri, KR Mohalla, Mysore 612. Shivakumar T.P. S/o B.Puttaswamy No.477, Kethupuragrama
T.N.Pura Tq., Mysroe District- 571101
613. Vishnuvardhana N., No. 3C, 998/1, HRBR Layout, 1st Block, Kalyan Nagar Bangalore – 560 043 614. Jagadeesh K.V., No. 18, Sushrutha Hospital Karnataka Institute of Medial Science
Vidyanagar, Hubli 615. Sanjeev M. Patil No. 6/A, Siddarama Nilaya 9th Main, BSK 1st Stage 2nd Block ,50 Feet Road
- 93 -
Hanumanthanagar Bangalore – 560 050 616. Parashurama K., Mutuguppe at post Sorab Taluk, Shimoga District-577434 617. Anandakumar H.D., No.103, 20th Cross, CHBS Layout,
Behind BDA Complex Vijayanagar, Bangalore 618. Chandrakala K., No.692, 8th Main, 9th Cross, BTM Layout, 2nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 076 619. Devaraju K.G., No.111, Vishwa Krupa Chinna Swamy Layout Bharath Nagar, M.S. Palya,
Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore – 560 097
Post: Assistant Controller
620. Somanath P.G. Hostel, Chetan Block Room No. 101 Krishnanagar UAS Dharwad - 580005 621. Shivaputra C/o Prabhu Hosamani Advocate, Plot No.182,
CIB Colony, Gulbarga - 585103 622. Chaitra J., No.24/9A, 8th Cross,
- 94 -
19th Main 1-N Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore – 560 010
Post: Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Tax 623. Suresh B. Itnal Hunashikatti at Post Bailhongal Tq., Belgaum District- 591153 624. Prabhu G., Near Sharada School Vadavati Nagar,
Sugar Factory Post Hiriyur Tq.,
Chitradurga District-572144 625. Pavithra B., No. 590, 12th Cross 7th Main, Vinayaka Layout Nagarabhavi Bangalore - 560072 626. Ranganatha S.O., Malladihalli at Post Holalkere Tq., Chitradurga District- 577531 627. Naziya Aman H.S., D/o Aman Ulla Khan H.S., Khazi Street,
Shikaripur Shimoga District-577472 628. Susheela I.C., Sriram Extension,
Sargur, H.D. Kote Tq., Mysore District- 571121
- 95 -
Post: Teasury Officer
629. Rajanna M.R., Central Institute of Fisheries Education Seven Bunglow Versova, Mumbai - 400061
Post: Asst. Commandant of KSRP 630. Raghunatha K.S., Kortikere, Doddamagge Hobli Arakalgudu Tq.,
Hassan District.
Post: District Officers SC & ST Welfare 631. Shivaramu H.S. S/o Shivalingaiah H.N. Hebberalu, Athgoor Hobli Maddur Taluk Mandya District-571429 632. Venkataramana Reddy E.V., C/o S.G.Mohankumar Patel Venkatappa Complex Sunkadakatte Bangalore - 560 091
Post: Tahasildar 633. Narasimharaju R., Mudiyappanna Kottige Harthikote P.O., Hiriyur Tq., Chitradurga District-577545 634. Siddappa Hulloli At Post Mugalkhod Rabiag Tq., Balgaum District-591 235
- 96 -
635. Lokesh H.D., No.22, 9th Cross, Swimming Pool Extension Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 003 636. Shashikumar N., Room No. 138 Shishir Hostel, IARI PUSA Campus
New Dehli - 110012 637. Praveen K.N., No.1356, 2nd Main Vijayanagar 2nd State
Mysore – 570017. 639. Chidananda N.S., S/o Thope Gowda Thyagaraja Colony Shanivara Shanthe North Coorge – 571235 640. Ajeej Desai Islampur at Post Hukkeri Taluk Belgaum District- 591243 641. Roopa I.P., # 7, Shreeshashanka Opp. Devaiah Garden RMV 2nd Stage, Nagashettihalli, Bangalore – 560094. 642. Nagaraja H.L., Honnenahalli,
Bhaktarahalli Post Kunigal Taluk
Tumkuru District- 572510
- 97 -
643. Shivanandamurthy B.C. S/o Channegowda Bidarakote, Maddur Tq., Mandya District- 571 425 644. Ravindra Karalingannavar C/o M.B.Nesaragi
Basavanagar Extension Near Ganapati Temple Gokak -591307.
645. Mallikarjuna B., C/o Jayaramareddy No.30, IV Cross,
Jaibharthi Nagar Bangalore - 560 033. 646. Manjushree N., No.1192/2, 1st Main MC Layout, Vijayanagar Bangalore - 560 040 647. Bharati Hollikeri C/o M/s Rajeshwari Medical Agency
BDO Complex, Gokak Belgaum District- 591307
648. Meghana R., No. 36, 11th Main, 13th Cross M.T.Layout, 1st Cross,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore - 560 003
649. Chandrashekharaiah H.G., C/o Rangaraju Malleshwaram Krupa No. 11/3, 12th Main,
Vijayanagar, Bangalore – 560 040
- 98 -
650. Savitha M.K. W/o Srinivasa C.J., Chandagirikoppal Post Ballenahalli,
Srirangapatna Tq.-571807 651. Rajesh M.R., No. 709, E Block 11th Main, 3rd Cross J.P. Nagar,
Mysore - 570008 652. Vijaya Kumar A.B., S/o Basappa Ajjenahalli Saslu Post Chikkanayakanahalli Tumkur District- 572226 653. Sajidahamad Mulla Behind National Bakery Anklai Road at Post Sankeswar, Hukkeri Tq., Belgaum District- 591313 654. Veena B.N., GHS Akkanahally Cross Post Nuggehally, CR Patna Hassan District- 573131 655. Shriharsha S. Shetti C/o S.B.Shetti Chief Chemist, Ganga Sugar DKSSKN, Chikkodi - 591247 656. Jayashri Shintri D/o M.S.Shintri Shivabasava Nilaya At Post Tq., Saundatti District: Belgaum - 591126
- 99 -
657. Kumaraswamy B.T., Basoor Post, Kadur Tq., Chickmagaluru District-577116 658. Jaya H., No. 25, 6th Cross, Pipeline Road, Magadi Road, Bangalore - 560 023 659. Audrama PSI Nippani Rural Police Station,
Belgaum District-591237 660. Sudha B., No.C-09, Police Qtrs. Jalahalli, Bangalore - 560 031 661. Manjunatha M.N., Marjenahalli Village Kamadhenahally Post Kolar Tq. & District- 563101 662. Ravi Chandra Naik No.436, 6th C Main, 2nd Stage, 2nd Phase Mahalakshmi Layout Bangalore – 560086 663. Rangaswamy R., Research Scholar Kuvempu Inst. of Kanada Studies Manasagangotri
Mysore - 570006 664. Arulkumar Hurulinajanapura Saraguru P.O., Chamarajanagar District- 571313
- 100 -
665. Venkataraju N.C., Nelamakanahalli, Iggalur Post
Channapatna Taluk, Bangalore Rural District-562138
666. Shivegowada H.N. Halebeedu Police Station,
Belur Tq., Hasan District-573121. 667. Naveen Kumar Raju S., #70/A, Venkateswara Nilya,
4th Cross, 20th Main, Girinagar T Block,
Bangalore - 560085. 668. Dakshayini K., No.57, 2nd Cross,
3rd Main Road, Kathereguppe East,
Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bangalore - 560085.
669. Geetha C.D.
C/o Chidanand N.H., Tours & Travels Section, MSIL , Cunningham Road ,
Bangalore - 560053. 670. Geetha N.R.,
D/o Ramanjanaiah G., 7th Cross, Adarshanagar,
Belagumba Road, Tumukur - 572103.
671. Prakash T.V.,
S/o Virupakshappa T., NGO’s Colony ,
T.R. Nagar, Challakere , Chitradurga District-577522.
- 101 -
672. Niranjan C.C., Wood Rose Alur, Siddapur Village, Via Shanivarsanthe,
Kodagu District-571235.
Post: Commercial Tax Officer
673. Subhash K.R., C/o Rama Krishna Reddy Royal English Medium School, Anjani Extension, Chintamani - 563125.
674. Channabasavanna Langoti S/o S.Y.Langoti, Basavbelagu,
Mahantesh Nagar, Ramadurga Post,
Belgaum District- 591123. 675. Shantha Mallesh K.,
Near Balamuriganapati Temple, Vivekanandanagar, T.N.Pur-571124.
676. Shridevi B. Shankeshwar H.No.147, Vasanthanagar, Keshwapur, Hubli - 580023. 677. Deepa N. No.264, 2nd Stage, 7th Cross,
Mahadeshwara Nagar, Mysore - 570016.
678. Parikshith B.N.,
Old Vokkaliga Street, Maddur, Mandya - 571428.
679. Shivanna M. Managalli P.O. & Village,
Kollegal Tq.,
- 102 -
Chamarajanagar District- 571439. 680. Manjula V.R.
C/o Budeppa H.B. Veterinary Officer, SLBTC RDP,
Hesarghatta-560088. 681. Holeyappa H.,
Huttadimba Village, Nechadi Post, Sagar Tq., Shimoga District- 577431
682. Vishalakashamma
No.703, Yajaman Chaluvegowda Bldg.,
M.G.Koppal, Hebbal, Mysore - 570017.
683. Anuradha K.N.,
D.No.1760, Vijayanagar Housing Board Qtrs., Bangarpet, Kolar District-563114.
684. Sangappa Koli GHS Doddanekundi Post,
Marathahalli, Bangalore - 560037
685. Jayaprakash Nayak M., Bhaskara Nilaya, No.11/309,
Padil House, Puttur Easba, P.O. Puttur, D.K.-574201.
Post: Assistant Director of Legal Metrology
686. Kumara M.S.,
#296, 19th Main, 2nd Cross, Behind Ganapathi Temple, Vijayanagar 2nd Stage,
- 103 -
Mysore - 570017. 687. Sarala Itty S.,
C/o B.S.Pillai, No.241/1, Near Railway Colony, Hebbal, Mysore- 570016
688. Guruprasad M.,
C/o Rich N Style Tailor Subramanyapuram Road, 17/2, Kadirenahalli
Bangalore - 560070
Post: Asst. Registrar of Co-op Society
689. Nagaraja N.M., Nelavagilu Village & Post, Nandagudi Hobli
Hosakote Tq., Bangalore Rural District- 562122.
Post: Dy. Superintendent of Excise
690. Murali K.S.,
Karmayogi Nivas, 112- A, 8-B Cross, 8th Main, Shivanagar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore - 560010.
691. Bindushree P.,
# 85-86, 3rd Main, 2nd Cross, BHCBS Layout,
Bannerghatta Main Road, Bangalore - 560076.
692. Arun Kumar K.,
No.406, 34 Block, KSRP HUDCO Quarters, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560034.
- 104 -
Post: Employment Officer
693. Suma M.V.
# 1401, Sri Rama Nilaya, 1-A Main Road, 2nd Cross, Gandhi Nagar, Yelahanka, Bangalore-560064.
Post: Asst. Director of Land Records
694. Ramya K., C/o Bandu Gowda No. 2313, 8th Cross,
Kuvempunagar, Channapatna, Bangalore Rural District–571501
Post: Chief Officers
695. Chetan R.C., No. 21, 1A Cross, Chikkabommasandra Layout, GKVK, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore – 560065 696. Raju C.,
No.773, III Cross, Basavanagudi, Guthal Colony,
Mandya – 571403 697. Shakeel Ahmed C.W.,
C/o Dr. Suheel Ahmed, Asra Hospital, # 14, Dispensary Road, Kalasipalyam, Bangalore – 560002
698. Ramamani V.K.,
Type V/2, IVRI Campus,
- 105 -
Hebbal, Bangalore – 560024 699. Rangaswamy B.T.,
Jadekunte Kaparahalli Post, Challakere Tq., Chitradurga District– 577522
700. Tusharamani M.V., C/o Dr. Narayana Swamy, No.746, MIG 2-Phase, 7th Cross, Sector A, Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore – 560064 701. Ashaad UR Rahman Shariff
PSI MIG 718, Rajiv Nagar, II Stage, Mysore – 570019
702. Mahantesh N.,
Room No. 71, Hemant Hostel, Iari Pusa Campus, New Delhi – 110012
703. Shalini R.,
No.1/81, Shalini School, Siddaramappa Gardens, Lingarajapura, Bangalore – 560084
Post: Asst. Treasury Officer
704. Rajesh N. Naik
Indiranagar, Siddapura, Uttara Kannada – 581355
705. Rekha R.,
No. 2038, Pipeline, 2nd Cross, Prashantha Nagar,
- 106 -
T.Dasarahalli, Bangalore – 560057
706. Shashidhar Layadagundi
At Post Gudur, Hungund Tq., Lingarajapura, Bagalkot District – 587202
707. Kavitha T.J.,
New Street, Talakadu, T. Narasipura Tq., Mysore District – 571122
Post: Asst. Superintendent of Prisons
708. Ramesh B.N.,
Teacher, Bayapalli Rural, Thimmasandra Post, Srinivasapur Tq., Kolar District – 563135
709. Shesha T.P.,
# 211, 1st main, 7th Cross, 2nd Stage, Hebbal, Hinkal Post, Mysore – 570017
710. Divya Shree K.C.,
G.Kebbahally, K.Gowdagere Post, Keragodu H.O., Mandya Tq. & District - 571446
711. Anitha R.,
No.34, 3rd Cross, Vivekananda Nagar, J.B. Nagar, Bangalore – 560033
- 107 -
712. Sheshu Murthy V., No. 7/148, Old Kuruba Street, Kollegal, Chamarajanagar District – 571440
713. Ramesh P.S.,
# 2943, 14th Cross, R.P. road, Nanjangud Town, Mysore District - 571301
714. Ranganatha P.,
D.No.43, 7th Cross, 5th Main, Vinayakanagar, Mysore – 570012
715. Suresha K.,
No. 1376, 6th Main, 2nd Stage, West of Chord Road, Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore – 560086
716. Latha R.,
No. 691/2, Ashirvad, Old Panchayat Road, Bandappa Cross, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore – 560022
717. Imamasab Myageri
Rajur Post, Ron Taluk, Gadag District – 582230
718. Lalitha Bai L.,
Shobha Shashi Nilaya, Kurvangi Road, Jyothinagara Post, Dantaramakki, Chickmagalur District – 577102
- 108 -
Post: Asst. Suptd of Prisons 719. Manjunath Ballari
C/o M.B.Ballari, 1st Main, Ashwini Nagar, Haveri Tq. & District - 581110
720. Puttegowda H.R.,
M.Hosakoppalu at P.O., H.N. Pura Road, Hassan – 573201
721. Pavate Aparna Adiveppa
C/o A.S.Pavate, Amarshetti Galli, Bagalkot - 587101
722. Mangala G.S.,
# 1627, 21st Main, 6th Cross, Sector 1, HSR layout, Bangalore – 560034
723. Chandra Shekhar P.,
20/1, Dattatreya Nilaya, 3rd Main, Meenakshi Nagar, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore – 560079
724. Madhu Chandra Tejaswi J.D.,
S/o Devappa Gowda G.S., H.No.36, Jeddugadde, Untoorkatte, Kaimara Post, Thirthahalli Tq. - 577424
725. Chandrashekhar
Venkatanarayanapet, Mudgal, Lingasagur Tq., Raichur District – 584125
- 109 -
726. Chiranjivi K., No. 414, 19th Cross, 20th Main Road, Venkata Swamy Gardens, Bangalore - 560023
727. Geetha L.,
Ramesh Nilaya, 1st Cross, K.R. Extension, Tumkur – 572101
728. Prasanna Kumar G.S.,
Gutte Village, Kodigenahalli P.O., Madhugiri Tq., Tumkur District – 572127
Post: District Marketing Officers
729. Vasundhara K.M.,
Sri Vybhavalakshmi Nilaya, Jai Bharath School Opp., Tavaragere, 3rd Cross, Mandya – 571401
730. Sreenivasareddy K.,
No. 41/A, 14th Cross, Karumariyamma Temple Road, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560086
731. Deepa M., No.9, 3rd Cross, Dayanandanagar, Srirampura, Bangalore – 560021
732. Vijayalakshmi
Yelehundi, Annur Post, H.D.Kote Tq.,
- 110 -
Mysore District – 571114
Post: Asst. Director of Food & Civl Supplies 733. Shrishail Kanakanawadi
Govt. Urdu High School, K.Pahad, Basavakalyan Tq., Bidar District - 585419
734. Elisha Andrews
2-C-706, 2nd Cross, 1st Block, Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore – 560043
735. Ravi N.C., S/o Chandra N.M.,
Nalluru, Sirigondanahalli (P.O.), Palya (Hobli), Alur (Tq.), Hassan District – 573218
736. Indresh R.,
# 22, 16th Main, KEB Quarters, Vijayanagar, Bangalore – 560040
737. Vishwanath Hiremath
S/o P.K.Hiremath, Dhanvanthari Sadan, Akki Alur, Hanagal (Tq.), Haveri District – 581102
738. Shankare Gowda Doddamani
C/o R.S.Patil, No. 553, 53rd Cross, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560010
- 111 -
(Amended and following parties added as Respondents vide court order dated 21.04.2016 on I.A.No.4/2016.)
739. Sreenivasa S., S/o Sanjeevappa Aged about 46 years, No.137, 6th Main Road 2nd Cross, Mathikere Bangalore-560054
740. Shankar
S/o Boregowda Aged about 48 years, Ballenahalli Taluk Srirangapatna Mandya District-571438
741. Azmathulla Khan S/o H.Khasim Khan Aged about 46 years, Opp. Nafees Store, 4th Main, 12th Cross, H.S. Extension Harihara Taluk Davanagere.
742. Venu D.V., S/o Velappa D. M., Aged about 44 years, No.100, 1st Main Road Papaiah Layout, R.R.Nagar Bangalore-560098
743. Gireeshan O., S/o M.S.Omkarappa Aged about 46 years, F-2707, Behind Raghava Parameswari School, Joggimatti Post Chitradurga District-577501
- 112 -
744. Shankaregowda S/o Poddegowda Aged about 52 years, Kyathanahalli, Jagenakeri Taluk: K R Pet, Mandya District-571405
745. Mahadevappa R., S/o Rudrappa Shetty Aged about 53 years, No. 4237, 1st Cross, Gandhinagar, Mandya, -571401
746. Shamsunnisa C.B., W/o Syed Aloof Hussain Aged about 49 years, D.No.28, PWD Quarters Kaval Byrasandra, R.T. Nagar Bangalore-560032
747. Smt.Vidya Honnashetty W/o V.S.Holiyol Aged about 35 years Naik Galli, Hukkeri Taluk, Belgaum District-591301. …RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Aditya Sondhi, Additional Advocate General along
with Sri R.Devadas, AGA & Smt.S.Susheela, AGA appeaing for the State R-1 & R-2;
Sri P.S.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for Sri Reuben Jacob, Adv. appearing for the KPSC R-3;
Sri K.Subba Rao, Senior Counsel along with Sri M.Narayana Bhat, Adv. for R-4, 301, 354, 294, 306, 322, 90, 96 & 184;
Sri M.K.Sharif, Adv. for R-5 & 6; Sri R.Kothwal, Adv. for Lex Pioneers for R-7, 8, 9, 43, 234,
288, 329, 341, 109, 462, 219, 697, 570, 571, 686, 289, 574, 363 & 257;
Sri K.M.Prakash, Adv. for R-15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 72, 80, 84, 113, 117, 119, 120, 124, 125, 128, 129, 131,
133, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 143, 145, 149, 150, 154, 238,
- 113 -
243, 249, 303, 310, 356, 357, 359, 361, 366, 368, 369, 371, 377, 380, 383, 386, 415, 427, 460, 487, 492, 495, 503, 509, 518, 551, 580, 582, 611, 612, 615, 616, 625, 628, 630, 632, 645, 652, 654, 661, 666, 677, 679, 680, 682, 696, 699, 703, 705, 710, 714, 715, 719, 720, 721, 722, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 123, 521, 26, 118, 144, 151, 155, 156, 365, 388, 428, 429, 439, 441, 479, 620, 691, 706, 707, 713, 147, 475, 540
& 650; Sri Vijayashankar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.L.Ramesh, Adv. for R-11, 13, 512, 519, 527, 529, 22, 523, 526, 508, 698, 517, 531, 513, 287, 292, 497, 525, 534, 483, 529, 17, 23,
535 & 591; Sri Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Counsel for Sri A.V.Srihari, Adv.
for R-24, 516, 454, 466, 476, 477, 480 & 700; Sri S.V.Narasimhan, Adv. for R-651, 653, 657, 659, 671,
105, 198, 200, 202, 240, 242, 246, 248, 250, 552, 553, 634, 640, 644, 656, 669, 670, 733, 557, 737, 690, 554, 197, 107,
196, 555, 201, 106, 261, 331, 333, 347, 186; Sri M.V.Vedachala & Sri P.Chidananda, Advs. for R-40, 61, 71, 95, 174, 183, 189, 416, 418, 419, 420, 469, 488, 536,
537, 538, 540, 541, 542, 543, 545, 609, 681, 678, 7, 600 & 84;
Sri N.Spoorthi Hegde, Adv. for R-204, 229, 254, 453, 569, 216, 332, 333 & 335;
Sri Santosh S. Nagarale, Adv. for R-395, 394, 398, 396, 391, 400, 402, 410, 407, 408, 82, 168, 120, 406, 393 & 403; Sri Krishna S. Dixit, Adv. for R-583, 584, 586, 589, 591,
594, 595, 596, 601, 639, 649, 701, 702, 585, 582, 597, 600, 592, 587 & 588;
Sri S.Vijaya Shankar, Senior Counsel for Sri P.Changalaraya Reddy, Adv. for R-286, 431, 458, 37, 39, 45, 59, 264, 265,
267, 268, 269, 270, 273, 274, 323, 313, 322, 285, 157, 116, 308, 315, 297, 324, 73, 63, 42, 60, 578, 284, 283, 271, 34,
436, 434, 464, 440, 57, 68, 69 & 74; Sri Deshraj, Adv. for R-426, 432, 435, 32, 33, 36, 44, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 62, 67, 70, 76, 110, 111, 142, 237 & 247;
Sri A.Nagarajappa, Adv. for R-736; Sri B.B.Bajantri, Adv. for R-185, 684, 544, 547, 417, 162, 163, 172, 194, 164, 176, 169, 173, 97, 168, 81, 193, 86, 685, 178, 88, 85, 192, 188, 180, 166, 448, 452, 82, 626,
- 114 -
604, 450, 225, 445, 102, 100, 444, 447, 112, 446, 449, 93, 442, 92, 171, 30, 58 & 79;
Sri K.T.Garadimani, Adv. for R-328, 331, 332, 333, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 344, 345, 347, 348, 349, 350, 352, 599,
729, 730 & 732; Sri L.M.Chidanandayya, Adv. for R-370;
Sri Srikanth, Adv. for Sri M.S.Partha Sarathi, Adv. for R-251, 397, 401, 404, 406, 648, 662 & 403;
Sri G.Girish, Adv. for R-28; Sri P.M.Nayak, Adv. for R-191;
Sri R.Srinivasa Gowda, Adv. for R-467, 491, 493, 495, 511, 375, 367, 384, 455, 468 & 484;
Sri H.E.Gundegowda, Adv. for R-30; Sri K.B.Onkar, Adv. for R-486;
Sri S.S.Halalli, Adv. for R-50, 73, 239, 244, 78, 54 & 55; Sri T.Nataraj, Adv. for R-422, 423, 424, 425, 556, 559, 560,
561, 562, 563, 564, 565 & 709; Sri R.Kiran & Sudhakar V., Advs. for VHCK Law Partners,
Advs. for R-205, 203 & 210; Sri P.Anand, Adv. for R-15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 26, 217, 215,
208, 226, 224, 235, 227, 223, 212, 228, 221, 218, 231, 209, 211, 232, 577, 95, 353, 220, 222, 576, 207, 455 & 213;
Sri M.S.Bhagwat, Adv. for R-431; Sri R.Subramanya, Adv. for Sri Ashok Haranahalli Law Partners, Advs. for R-496, 500, 461, 463, 478 & 459;
Sri Showri H.R., & Sri Akshay D.B., Advs. for R-82 & 168; Sri B.N.Shetty, Adv. for R-387, 390, 245, 378 & 389; Sri Jagadeesh B.N., Adv. for R-430, 437, 438 & 393;
Sri H.M.Vijaya Raghava Shastri & Sri B.Krishna, Advs. for R-643, 414, 58, 79 & 342;
Sri M.Vsihwajith Rai, Adv. for R-502; Sri B.M.Lokesh, Adv. for R-59;
Sri Dilipkumar, Adv. for R-141, 255, 409, 421, 457, 473 & 482;
Sri M.Krishnappa, Adv. for R-441, 617, 619, 581 & 482; Sri Dinesh Gaonkar & Associates, Advs. for R-175, 177, 186
& 181; Sri J.M.Umesh Murthy & Sri Ramesh M., Advs. for R-252,
256, 261, 294, 295, 296, 299, 306, 307, 312, 319, 320, 326, 327, 399 & 302;
- 115 -
Sri Girish B. Baladare, Adv. for R-732; Sri N.R.Ravikumar, Adv. for R-182 & 539;
Sri Dinesh S. Kadlas, Adv. for R-115, 121, 127, 134, 135, 158, 159, 623 & 158;
Sri S.H.Raghavendra, Adv. for R-627, 667, 676 & 675; Sri J.Prashanth, Adv. for R-510 & 668;
Sri K.S.Ganesh, Adv. for R-99; Sri A.A.Shingoti, Adv. for R-165;
Sri Shobith N. Shetty, Adv. for S.N.S. Law Chambers, Advs. for R-470;
Sri Prem Kumar Associates, Advs. for R-64; Sri Mahesha B., Adv. for R-114;
Sri S.B.Mathapathi & Sri Girish G.N., Advs. for R-12, 480, 593, 622, 716 & 341;
Sri T.Mohandas Shetty, Adv. for R-533; Sri C.N.Mahadeshwara, Adv. for R-46 & 38;
Sri Jayakumar S. Patil Associates, Advs. for R-405; Sri M.V.Hiremath, Adv. for R-472, 474, 481, 122 & 738;
Sri Chandrakanth R. Gowda, Adv. for R-711; Sri K.Manjunatha Rao Bhonsle, Adv. for R-65, 66, 51, 74,
77, 68, 69, 412 & 70; Sri D.S.Malipatil, Adv. for R-372;
Sri Subramanya Jois, Senior Counsel for Sri M.Nagaprasanna, Adv. for R-224, 358, 360, 205, 283, 335,
379, 390, 218, 273 & 141; Sri D.S.Manjegowda, Adv. for R-108, 605, 520 & 603;
Sri Narasimhan, Adv. for Sri Naveed Ahamed, Adv. for R-59, 671, 130, 39, 200, 202, 240 & 242; Sri Gireesha J.T., Adv. for R-170;
Sri L.Srinivasa Babu, Adv. for R-190; Sri Girish Kodgi, Adv. for R-206;
Sri Aravind V. Chavan & Sri Vinod Kumar Naidu K.V., Advs. for R-325, 189, 416, 418, 419 & 420;
Sri Ravindra V. Reddy, Adv. R-660 & 681; Sri Venkataram & Sri G.Dayanand, Advs. for R-451;
Sri Abubackher Shafi & Associates, Advs. for R-152, 590 & 336;
Sri B.Ramesh, Adv. for R-642 & 50; Sri B.S.Prasad & Sri Chinmayi, Advs. for R-110, 111 & 233;
Sri I.A.Khan, Adv. for R-558;
- 116 -
Sri G.B.Chandregowda, Adv. for R-350, 489, 599, 729, 730 & 732;
Sri Prakash M.G. & Sri I.S.Pramod Chandra, Advs. for R-132, 453 & 569;
Sri P.Mahesha, Adv. for R-146; Sri Aravind V. Chavan, Adv. for R-22, 25 & 27;
Sri Vinod Kumar Naidu K.V., Adv. for R-120, 129, 131, 133, 238 & 243;
Sri M.Jayaprakash Reddy, Adv. for R-359, 369, 371, 377, 509 & 518;
Sri B.R.Prasanna, Adv. for R-35 & 721; Sri J.D.Kashimath, Adv. for R-727 & 728;
Sri Dinesh A.S., Adv. for M/s People’s Law, Advs. for R-717; Sri K.Manjunatha Rao Bhonsle & Sri Nagaraju G.B., Advs.
for R-75; Sri C.Jagadish, Adv. for R-663, 664 & 665;
Sri Madhukar Nadig, Adv. for R-485; Sri Gopal V. Balamane, Adv. for R-391 & 400; Sri G.T.Rudramurthy, Adv. for R-334 & 120;
Sri Meera Rachappa Alur, party – in – person, for R-87; Sri M.Chidananda Kumar, Adv. for R-146, 275, 277, 278,
280, 281, 282 & 694; Sri M.R.Shailendra, Adv. for R-262 & 566;
Sri Madhukar J.V.S., Adv. for R-101; Sri Harish R., Adv. for R-82 & 168;
Sri Satish M. Doddamani, Adv. for R-41 & 617; Sri Fayaz Sab B.G., Adv. for R-135;
Sri B.V.Vidyalatha, Adv. for R-32 & 101; Sri S.G.Pandit, Adv. for R-291 & 712;
Sri G.S.Bhat & Associates, Advs. for R-53, 634, 506, 644, 656, 669, 670 & 733;
Sri G.Girish, Adv. for R-28; Sri Akshaya B.M., Adv. for R-417 & 544;
Sri Vivek Holla, Adv. for M/s Holla & Holla appearing for Sri B.S.Ramaprasad, Advs.;
Sri M.R.Vijayakumar, Adv. appearing for Sri B.A.Harishgowda, Adv.;
Sri K.C.Shanthakumar, Adv. appearing for Smt.Shobha Basavaraju, Adv.;
Sri S.G.Pandit & Sri Yogesh Naik, Advs. appearing for
- 117 -
Sri Arunachalam & Sri I.B.Nirwani, Advs.) . . . .
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated 09.07.2012 at Annex-N, issued by the R-2 & direct the respondents to reconsider the representation at Annex-L, given by the petitioners in the light of the final report of investigation submitted by the CID at Annex-J, vide covering letter dated 09.04.2012 at Annex-K and direct the respondents to take appropriate steps/actions with regard to the vitiated selection process of 1998, 1999 and 2004, Gazetted Group 'A' and 'B' Posts. In W.P.No.41366/2012: BETWEEN : 1. Umesh B.V.,
S/o Late Veerabhadrappa B.H., Aged 41 years, R/o Flat No. 203, Balaji Paradise, New No.33/7, Old No. 203/74-75, 5th Cross 5th Block, BSK III Stage Bangalore-51
2. Dinesh R.V., Aged about 43 years S/o Late R.V.Venkatramiah R/o No.825, 17th ‘F’ Main 5th Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore-10
3. Shivaprasada K.S., . Aged about 43 years S/o K.B.Sreekantaiah Kenkerepalya Sugganahalli (Post) Magadi (Taluk) Ramanagara (District)
- 118 -
4. Venkatesh T., Aged about 44 years S/o Thimmappa R/o Behind Bapuji High School C.K.Pur 2nd Cross Chitradurga
5. Mahesh M., Aged about 43 years S/o Mallesh C.M., R/o 1st Cross, Channapatna Road Muslim Colony, Halagur Malavalli (T), Mandya (Dt) - 571 421
6. Smt.Sharada Bai Aged about 47 years W/o R.R.Patel R/at Nandhihalli (Post) Basavanabagewadi (Taluk) Bijapur (District)
7. Dyamanaik S/o Aeshappa, Aged 42 years C/o Balasundram No.47, 10th Cross West of Chord Road II Stage Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore - 560086
8. Kumar L., Aged about 44 years S/o Late Laskari Naik R/at 1105/1, 5th Cross 2nd Main, Vinobha Nagara Davanagere
9. Nagarathna L., D/o Laskari Naik Aged about 42 years No.461, 1st Floor, 4th Main
- 119 -
12th Cross, WCR 2nd Stage Mahalaxmipuram Extension Rajajinagar, Bangalore - 560086
10. N.Vasudeva Aged about 35 years S/o C.G.Narayanagowda R/at 420/11, 1st Main, 7th Cross Amarajyothinagar, Bangalore - 40
11. Ranadeer Kumar N.R.,
Aged about 39 years S/o Ramachandan R/o 4137/2, 10th Cross Siddaveerappa Layout Davanagere - 570004
12. Suresh G.S., Aged about 41 years S/o Shambulingappa R/o Marikunte (P) Jagalur (T), Davanagere (D)
13. Mallikarjuna Aged about 36 years S/o Esharappa Gatte Gorkal (P), Manvi (T), Raichur (Dt)
14. Shankara B.S., S/o Siddappa Gowda B.R., Aged about 45 years R/o Salur Kondur (P) Theerthahalli (T), Shimoga (Dt)
15. Siddanagouda Patil Aged about 40 years S/o Chidandagouda Patil R/at No.717/8, 5th Main 6th Cross, Hanumanthanagara
- 120 -
Bangalore - 19
16. Veena K., Aged about 40 years D/o Krishnegowda R/at No.717/8, 5th Main 6th Cross, Hanumanthanagara Bangalore-19
17. Praveen R., Aged about 45 years S/o Rudra Naik L., R/at Manjunatha Nilay 1st Main, 4th Cross Behind Dathathreyya Temple Jayanagar, Tumakur
18. Chandranna K., Aged about 44 years S/o Late Kariyanna Chngavara Post Sira (Tq), Tumkur
19. Varade Raje Gouda G.C., Aged about 43 years S/o Channegowda Ganggayakanahalli Shivalli (P), Dudda Hobli, Mandya (D)
20. Surendra H.P., Aged about 44 years S/o Puttaswamy Gowda Hebbal Koppal, Hebbal (Post) K.R. Nagara (T), Mysore (D)
21. Mohammed Aleem Pasha Aged about 42 years S/o Abdul Muqtar No.186, Nyaya Marga
- 121 -
Siddartha Nagara Mysore - 570011
22. Basavaraja Patel G.K., Aged about 29 years S/o Kotra Gowda G.S., Basavanakote Post Jagalur (Tq), Davanagere - 577 513
23. Basavaraja Hallur
Aged about 39 years S/o Siddappa Hallur R/o Bhachchappa Nilaya Kanakapura Road Doddakallasandra (Post) Bangalore South - 560 062
24. Ramaiah G.A., Aged about 40 years S/o Ayyannappa Ganapathihalli Chunchakuppe (Post) Tavarakere, Bangalore - 562 130
25. Kiran R. Naik
Aged about 39 years S/o Rudra Naik, R/at No.525, TV Centre, Belgaum - 1
26. Niraj R. Naik
Aged about 37 years S/o Rudra Naik, R/at No.525, TV Centre, Belgaum - 1
27. Manjunath N.V.,
Aged about 39 years S/o Venkateshappa
- 122 -
R/o Nayakarahalli Kolar (T), Kolara District - 563 126 ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri D.R.Ravishankar & Sri Ranganath S. Jois &
Sri Basavara Patel G.K., Advs.)
AND : The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Chief Secretary Vidhan Soudha Bangalore - 560 001 …RESPONDENT
(By Sri Aditya Sondhi, Additional Advocate General along with Sri R.Devadas, Principal Government Advocate &
Smt.S.Susheela, AGA.) . . . .
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus take corrective action of the recruitments & appointments on the basis of the CID report pertaining to the selection for KAS [Probationers] for the year 1998, 1999 & 2004 as per earlier the recommendations of the K.K.Mishra Committee Report & the final report was submitted on 09.04.2012, vide Ann-E, & thereafter to take appropriate remedial action of selection process as per law & in public interest so that the competent & merited candidates are selected & appointed. In W.P.No.27730/2012: BETWEEN : 1. Mahesh P.,
S/o Puttanarasaiah, Aged about 41 years, No.486, 6th Main,
- 123 -
Siddarth Nagar 2nd Stage, Mysore-570011
2. Allabakash M.S., S/o Late Subhan S.K. Aged about 36 years, No.129, Chowdareddy Palya, Chintamani-563125, Chikkaballapur District.
3. Gangadhar M. Doddamani S/o Doddamani, Aged about 41 years, Asst. Treasury Officer, Bijapur C/o Sri D.F.Kodi H.No.89, Siddeswara Colony, Toravi Road, Bijapur-586101
4. Ravish Vardhan M.N., S/o Late Nagaih, Aged about 43 years, No.709, Sri Guru Nilaya III Block, J.P.Nagar 9th Phase, Alahalli, Bangalore-560062
5. Sujatha M.S., D/o Late M.S.Narayan, Aged about 48 years, No.4, 4th Main, 12th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560030.
6. Feroz Khan S/o Azeez Khan, Aged about 38 years, No.2584, Idgah Mohallah, Prashanthnagar Chikkaballapur-562102
7. C.Gopal Reddy S/o Chowda Reddy, Aged about 47 years,
- 124 -
Mutanallur Post & Village, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore-562158.
8. B.V.Ravi S/o Vishwanathappa, Aged about 42 years, No.25, 1st Main Sampangiramnagar, Bangalore-560027.
9. H.Lakshmana S/o Hanumanthappa, Aged about 43 years, Doddattekalavatti Post, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District.
10. Fahmeeda Khanam D/o Nemath Bi, Aged about 40 years, No.3/11, 1st Main Bismillahnagar, Bangalore-560029.
11. Kavitha Linet D/o Thomas Xavier, Aged about 37 years, E.W.S No. 724, 1st Main Kuvempunagar, Hassan-573201 ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri M.S.Naragund & Sri Vikram Padake, Advs.)
AND : 1. The State of Karnataka
Rep. by its Chif Secretary, Vidhana Soudha,
- 125 -
Bangalore-560001.
2. The Principal Secretary Department of Personnel & Administration Reforms Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560001.
3. The Karantaka Public Service
Commission (KPSC), Udyoga Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.
(cause title amended vide court order dated 12.08.2013) …RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Aditya Sondhi, Additional Advocate General along
with Sri R.Devadas, Principal Government Advocate & Smt.S.Susheela, AGA for R-1 & 2;
Sri P.S.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for Sri Reuben Jacob, Adv. for R-3.) . . . .
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated 09.07.2012 at Annx-G issued by the R-2 and direct the respondents to reconsider the representation at Annx-E given by the petitioners in the light of the final report of investigation submitted by CID at Annx-C vide covering letter dated 09.04.2012 at Annx-D and direct the respondents to take appropriate steps/actions with regard to the vitiated selection process of 1998, 1999 & 2004 Gazzetted Group A & B Posts. In W.P.Nos.43718 & 43720 – 43732/2012: BETWEEN : 1. T.M.Devaraju
Aged about 45 years, S/o Mayigowda,
- 126 -
Thyloor (Post) Maddur Taluk Mandya District-571433
2. B.S.Manjuantha Aged about 46 years, S/o B.S.Surya Narayana Rao, # 328, 11th Cross, 29th Main, 1st Phase, J.P Nagar, Bangalore-560078.
3. Siddaraju N.R., Aged about 43 years, S/o Rachaiah, Nilasoge Village & Post T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District-571124
4. Srinivas E.N., Aged about 48 years, S/o Naga Naik, Abhishek, Kallahalli Main Road, KHB Colony, Vinobha Nagar, Shimoga-577204
5. B.L.Manjunatha Aged about 44 years, S/o Lakkegowda, Are Boovanahali B. Bachahally Post, K.R. Pete Taluk, Mandya District-571812
6. Shashikala G., Aged about 38 years, W/o Prabhu K.N., No.423, I.D. Main, 8th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560095
7. A.R.Sudarshan Aged about 44 years,
- 127 -
S/o Rangegowda, Ankapura Village & Post, Hassan Taluk & District-573120
8. Maheswaraiah S.B., Aged about 44 years, S/o Late S.Basappa, # - 1, Maria Villa 2nd Cross, Kempegowda Layout, N. Nagenahalli, Bangalore
9. Balasubramanya K.R., Aged about 39 years, S/o Ramakrishna Udupa, Kole Halasu Village, Addada Post, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagalur District-577126
10. Devaraju T., Aged about 40 years, S/o Thammegowda, Annur Post, Bharathi Nagar Post, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District-571422
11. Veena D.S.,
Aged about 41 years, D/o D.S.Sundaresh, Mill Road, Kushalnagar Extension, Sakaleshapura, Hassan District-573134
12. Kathyayini J., Aged about 43 years, W/o Sudhir, No.157, MIG 707, 3rd Main, 1st Cross, 4th Phase, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore-560106
- 128 -
13. Sadananda S.B., Aged 40 years, S/o Balachandrappa S.G., No.159, Pension Mohalla, Shimoga-577201
14. Nageshkumar B.D., Aged 49 years, S/o B.Dharanendrappa, Near Jain Temple, Holalkere, Chitradurga District-577526 ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri M.G.Ravisha, Adv.)
AND : 1. The State of Karnataka
Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560001
2. The Principal Secretary Department of Preronnel & Administrative Reforms (DPAR) Vidhanasoudha, Bangalore-560001
3. Smt.K.Jyothi Major, R/at No.386/A, 14th Main, M.C. Layout, Vijaynagar, Bangalore – 560040
4. Smt.Harishilpa Major, R/o No.123, Gunjur, Gunjur Post, Via Varthur, Bangalore East, Bangalore - 560087
5. Smt.Shoba T.R., Major, R/o No.125/33, 4th Cross, Sundar Nagar, Gokula,
- 129 -
Bangalore – 560 054
6. Sri H.E.Krishnamurthy Major, No.463, 11th ‘B’ Main, 17th Cross, 5th Block, Jayangar, Bangalore - 560041
7. Sri Munireddy B.M., Major, No.E-5, Brundavan Residency, Amruthnagar, Bangalore – 560092
8. Sri Manjunath Swamy Major, No.35, Nagadevanahalli, Jnanabharathi Post, Kengeri, Bangalore – 560 056. …RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Aditya Sondhi, Additional Advocate General along
with Sri R.Devadas, Principal Government Advocate & Smt.S.Susheela, AGA for R-1 & 2;
Sri K.M.Prakash, Adv. for R-3 to 8.) . . . .
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records & direct the respondents to take appropriate steps or action on considering the representation i.e., Annx-D with regard to the vitiate the entire selection process of Group A & B post in 1998,1999 and 2004 batches in the light of final report of investigation submitted by the CID at Annx-B. In W.P.No.4297/2013: BETWEEN : 1. Suresh Kumar H.S.,
Aged 43 years S/o Hanumantharaya Post: Yergol , Yadgiri Tq.,
- 130 -
Yadgiri District - 585 218
2. Raghu V., Aged 46 years S/o Late I.S.Venkatachalaiah #569, II Cross, Sreenivasanagar Bangalore – 560050.
3. Asharani R.G., Aged 44 years D/o Govindamurthy #1396, “Antharanga”, 9th Main, 9th Cross Srinivasanagar Banashankari I Stage Bangalore - 560050
4. Dr. Hanumavva Patil @ Usha Ravindra Aged 42 years D/o Mallanagouda Patil #C-38, UAS Staff Quarters Hebbal, Bangalore - 560024
5. Dr. Nazeeruddin Aged 47 years, S/o Ameer Sab Vidyanikethan Jaraganahalli J.P. Nagar 6th Phase Bangalore - 560078
6. Rajashekhar Madiwalappa Naikal Aged 43 years District Co-Operative Union Building (Sawanur Nawab Building) 1st Main, II Cross, Narayanapura Dharwad
7. Shantagowda Aged 48 years S/o Shankargouda Police Patil
- 131 -
R/o Chincholi, Shorapur Tq., Yadagiri District - 585216
8. Rangashamaiah K.N., Aged 42 years, S/o Nagojappa Kangalpura, Sakkaregollahalli (Post) Doddaballapura Taluk Bangalore Rural Distric-561 204
9. Nagesh Sharma K., Aged 41 years S/o Late Murthy G.N.K., #2291, 9th Main, II D Cross Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560010.
10. Parvathi B., Aged 42 years D/o C.Y.Basawaraju 3rd Cross West, J.C.R. Extension Chitradurga - 577 501
11. K.Ananthappa Aged 43 years, S/o Kenchappa Vengalapura, Srirampura Hobli Hosadurga Taluk Chitradurga District – 577542.
12. Parvathappa S., Aged 43 years S/o Marulasiddappa S., Harapanahalli Taluk Davanagere District – 583127.
13. Rajaneesh Aged 46 years, S/o Chikkanna, R/at No.100, RHBCS, Srigandha Kaval C Block, Bangalore-560091. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri K.N.Subba Reddy & Sri Vivek S. Reddy, Advs.)
- 132 -
AND : 1. The Karnataka Public Service Commission
Udyoga Soudha Bangalore - 560 001 Rep. by its Secretary
2. The State of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Bangalore - 560 001 Rep. by its Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Y.S.Yatish Chandra, Adv. for R-1;
Sri Aditya Sondhi, Additional Advocate General along with Sri R.Devadas, Principal Government Advocate &
Smt.S.Susheela, AGA for R-2.) . . . .
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus take corrective action of the recruitments & appointments on the basis of CID report pertaining to the selection for KAS [Gazetted Probationers for Group A & B Posts] for the year 1998 as per earlier the recommendation of the K.K.Mishra Committee Report & the final cid report submitted on 09.04.2012, vide Ann-C & thereafter to take appropriate remedial action of selection process as per law & in public interest so that the competent & merited candidates are selected & appointed. In W.P.No.1733/2013: BETWEEN : Sri T.Jayashekar S/o Late Thimpperudraiah T., Aged about 47 years,
- 133 -
R/at No.208, 2nd Stage, 2nd Phase, 15th ‘B’ Cross, Mahalakshmipura, Bangalore-86 ...PETITIONER
(By Sri Putta Hanumagowda & Sri Marisiddegowda, Advs.)
AND : 1. The State of Karnataka
Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560001
2. The Principal Secretary Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DPAR) Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560001. …RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Aditya Sondhi, Additional Advocate General along
with Sri R.Devadas, Principal Government Advocate & Smt.S.Susheela, AGA for R-1 & 2.)
. . . .
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to take appropriate steps or action on considering the representation i.e., Anenxure-D with regard to the vitiate the entire selection process of Group A & B Post in 1998, 1999 and 2004 batches in the light of final report of investigation submitted by the CID at Annexure-B.
These writ petitions having been heard and reserved
for orders, coming on for pronouncement of orders, this day,
N.KUMAR J., pronounced the following:
- 134 -
O R D E R
A classic case of white coloured, educated, highly
placed men holding responsible posts in the administration,
betraying the confidence reposed in them by the public of
Karnataka is the subject matter of these proceedings.
Behind the scene, how fraud, illegality, irregularity, deceit, is
practiced to manipulate the results of the examination, and
some of the selected candidates even before they are born in
the cadre, are suffering from the vice of corruption,
nepotism, casteism. The facts set out herein will unravel
this sordid state of affairs in the Karnataka Public Service
Commission, a premier, constitutional authority, constituted
to recruit educated people to Civil Services, which is the
subject matter of this public interest litigation.
2. The petitioners have preferred these writ
petitions seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the
endorsement dated 09.07.2012 at Annexure N issued by the
2nd respondent, a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents to reconsider the representation at
- 135 -
Annexure – L made by them in the light of the final report of
investigation submitted by the CID at Annexure – J and to
direct the respondents to take appropriate steps / actions
with regard to the vitiated selection process of 1998, 1999
and 2004, Gazetted Group A and B posts.
3. The said writ petitions are filed in the nature of
class action or in public interest. Before we deal with the
issues arising in these cases for a proper appreciation, it is
necessary to notice the background of this litigation.
4. Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short,
hereinafter referred to as ‘the KPSC’) issued a notification
dated 09.03.1998 inviting applications for recruitment to the
posts of Gazetted Probationers (Group A and B posts) in
pursuance of a request of the State Government made on
04.02.1998 to select 415 candidates for Group A and Group
B posts. In response to the said notification, KPSC received
85,598 applications. On scrutiny, 79,130 candidates were
found eligible for preliminary examination. The mode of
- 136 -
selection to these posts is governed by the Karnataka
Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by
Competitive Examination) Rules, 1997 (for short ‘the
Recruitment Rules’) made by the Government of Karnataka
in exercise of power under Section 3(1) read with Section 8 of
the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978.
5. Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules requires that a
combined competitive examination for recruitment to one or
more of the services or group of posts (mentioned in
Schedule 1 to the Rules) shall be held every year, subject to
availability of vacancies, in the manner set out in Schedule II
to the Rules. As per the scheme of examination contained in
Schedule II to the Rules, the competitive examination
comprises of two stages viz.,
1. Preliminary examination (Objective Type) for
selection of candidates for the main
examination; and
2. Main examination (written examination and
personality test) for selection of candidates
for various services and posts.
- 137 -
6. The preliminary examination was held on
30.08.1998 and 56,228 candidates appeared for the said
examination. The results of the preliminary examination
were announced by KPSC on 16.11.1998 and 9,857
candidates were declared eligible for the main examination,
keeping in view the prescribed ratio of 1:20 and also to
accommodate the candidates belonging to SC, ST and OB
classes in the same ratio. The main examination was held
between 09.04.1999 and 03.05.1999. On 12.1.2000 the
results of the main examination were announced and 2,397
candidates were qualified for personality test (interview).
Keeping in view the ratio of 1:5 and accommodating the
same ratio of number of candidates belonging to SC, ST and
OB classes. 1,209 candidates who had failed in the
compulsory papers (Kannada and English) were not
considered for ranking. The personality test which was held
between 19.06.2000 and 31.07.2000, could not be held due
to certain administrative reasons. Subsequently, the
Government withdrew the vacancies on 14.08.2000, but
- 138 -
again referred back the vacancies to KPSC in June 2001.
Therefore, the personality tests were held only in July and
August, 2001. The provisional list of selected candidates
was published on 28.09.2001 in the Official Gazette.
7. In the meanwhile, in February, 2000, Eight
candidates who had appeared for the main (Written)
Examination, but had failed in the compulsory papers of
Kannada and/or English, filed W.P.Nos.5332-5339/2000
alleging serious irregularities in evaluation of answer scripts
in regard to the main examination and sought a direction for
re-valuation of their answer scripts in compulsory subjects
and for other reliefs. Another candidate who failed in the
compulsory subjects filed W.P.No.7022/2000 seeking a
direction to KPSC to revalue his answer script in compulsory
English papers. In both the writ petitions, petitioners’
Counsel raised several grounds. The KPSC resisted the said
writ petitions contending that the examinations had been
conducted in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. It
denied any irregularity either in conducting the examination
- 139 -
or in the valuation of answer scripts. It pointed out that all
the writ petitioners had not failed in Kannada and English
papers; that only 3 had failed in English and one had failed
in Kannada paper and others had passed the compulsory
papers, but did not become eligible for personality test as
they did not secure sufficient marks to be called for
personality test. KPSC set out the procedure adopted for
evaluation of answer scripts in their statement of objections.
When the said writ petitions came up for consideration
before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted that the
issues raised in the writ petitions were of considerable
importance and even though the petitioners in the writ
petitions had made individual grievances in regard to
valuation of their answer scripts, several other infirmities
which had been pointed out related to public interest and
therefore it was desirable to refer the matter to the Division
Bench. The learned Single Judge, therefore, by a considered
and detailed order dated 21.03.2000, referred the said writ
petitions to the Division Bench.
- 140 -
8. In the meanwhile, 24 other candidates also
approached this Court with a similar prayer. Hence, those
petitions were also clubbed with W.P.Nos.5332-39/2000 and
W.P.No.7022/2000. Before the Division Bench, KPSC
pointed out that as recruitment related to State Service, and
as the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal was functional by
appointment of necessary members, the writ petitions were
not maintainable. The Division Bench accepted the said
contention and transferred all 33 writ petitions to the
Tribunal with a direction to treat the writ petitions as
Applications and adjudicate the same in accordance with
law. Accordingly, the Tribunal registered the transferred writ
petitions as Applications and assigned numbers. Nine other
candidates directly approached the Tribunal in Application
Nos.8087, 8274, 8275, 8442 to 8446 to 8446 and 8502 of
2001. Petitions transferred by the High Court to the
Tribunal and these 9 applications were all clubbed together.
In the course of hearing, the Tribunal directed KSPC to
produce the following:
(i) The answer scripts of Rameshwarappa and
two of his relatives who had secured top
- 141 -
ranks, as also the answer scripts of Sheriar
Khan and one Virupaksha whose father
was a Deputy Secretary of KPSC.
(ii) Model answers.
(iii) The list of Examiners, Head Examiners and
Chief Examiners, who had evaluated the
answer scripts and tabulated the
statements, indicating who had valued the
answer scripts of applicants and others.
9. All these documents were produced by KPSC
and considered by the Tribunal. The arguments were
concluded on 02.11.2001 and the Tribunal reserved the
applications for orders.
10. On 19.11.2001 the Tribunal issued a direction
to KPSC to maintain status quo until the disposal of the
Applications. The Tribunal also suggested to the learned
counsel for KPSC that KPSC may produce the marks
assigned to the top 50 candidates in each category (by the
Examiner, Head Examiner and the Chief Examiner) and
posted the matters to 21.11.2001. KPSC sought certain
- 142 -
clarification in regard to suggestion of the Tribunal for
production of documents. Thereafter the learned counsel for
KPSC sought time to consult the Commission and make
submissions. For that purpose the matter was adjourned to
22.11.2001 and again to 28.11.2001. On 28.11.2001, the
learned counsel for the KPSC submitted that the Secretary of
the Commission was away on training at Mussouri for a
period of six to eight weeks, and the keys of the almirah in
which the records were kept were with him and therefore the
information could not be produced immediately. Even
otherwise he submitted that the KPSC was unwilling to give
the information sought. To that effect, a memo came to be
filed. In those circumstances, the Tribunal, by order dated
06.02.2002 allowed the Applications, on the ground that
awarding of marks to candidates was not fair and therefore
the merit list was vitiated. The Tribunal directed that KPSC
shall get the answer scripts freshly valued by appointing the
examiners who are in no way interested in the candidates
who had taken the examination and it also issued directions
- 143 -
as to who should be the examiner, how they should be
selected and to formulate a scheme for valuation etc.
11. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the KPSC
filed writ petition Nos.12548-589/2002 and sought quashing
of the order passed by the Tribunal. Respondent Nos.1 to 42
were the applicants before the Tribunal and 43rd respondent
was the State Government. Several selected candidates,
whose names appeared in the provisional select list
published by the KPSC, also filed writ petitions challenging
the order of the Tribunal. All these writ petitions were
clubbed together. When these petitions came up for
consideration for the interim prayer on 19.3.2002, the
learned Counsel for the KPSC voluntarily produced the
marks obtained by the top 50 candidates in each of the
categories with an abstract, as also the particulars of
moderation (i.e., marks increased/decreased by the Head
Examiners/Chief Examiners) in regard to all candidates, who
would become eligible for personality test. This was
precisely what the Tribunal wanted KPSC to do, which the
- 144 -
KPSC declined to do, which resulted in the Tribunal passing
the order.
12. After hearing the rival contentions in regard to
interim prayer, the High Court directed the KPSC to produce
the list of candidates in whose cases the variation of marks
was plus or minus 20 or above (Out of 300 marks) in a
subject and also to furnish the particulars of cases where
the Chief Examiners had done random revaluation with
particulars of difference in marks. In response to the same,
on 21.3.2002 KPSC made available for the perusal of the
Court, statements showing the subject wise marks awarded
by the Examiner, Head Examiner and Chief Examiner where
the difference was plus or minus 20 or above with subject
wise abstracts.
13. On 27.03.2002 KPSC offered to re-do the
moderation and circulated its proposals to all the Counsel.
However, as the service of respondents was not complete and
as the matter was being heard only with reference to the
- 145 -
interim prayer, the said memo was not filed. After service,
during the course of final arguments on 22.7.2002, KPSC
filed the said memo dated 27.3.2002 offering to redo the
moderation, without prejudice to its contentions.
14. It was also submitted on behalf of KPSC that an
in-house inquiry was held by a Three Member Sub-
Committee of the KPSC in regard to the alleged irregularities,
and a report had been submitted to the effect that the
results of the ten candidates were vitiated by malpractice
and recommending the cancellation of their results after
following the necessary procedures and further
recommending certain other steps. It assured that it would
also initiate action in terms of the said report. A copy of the
said report was made available to the High Court for perusal.
15. However the contesting respondents (applicants
before the Tribunal) were not however willing for restricting
the revaluation/moderation in the manner suggested by
KPSC in its memo filed on 22.7.2002. After considering the
- 146 -
aforesaid material and hearing the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the High Court formulated the
following points for consideration :
1. Whether the applications are liable to be
rejected for non-joinder of selected
candidates as parties?
2. Whether there were any irregularities in
the evaluation/moderation?
By a detailed order referring to several judgments of
the Apex Court, the High Court held that there was no need
for the applicants before the Tribunal to implead all the
candidates who were qualified for the personality test or all
selected candidates.
16. Insofar the irregularities in the evaluation and
moderation, after taking note of the judgment of the Apex
Court, the guidelines followed by the KPSC, by a reasoned
order, the High Court held that mere doubts and
apprehension without factual basis would not lead to
inference that the valuations were not done properly.
- 147 -
Thereafter they examined the material placed on record and
on such verification, they found that in respect of 7 optional
subjects (out of total 30 optional subjects) viz., Animal
Husbandry, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering, Philosophy, Geology and Urdu, a
candidate had to write two papers each on these subjects. It
was held that as the variation of marks had not exceeded
plus or minus 20 marks (out of 300 marks) in regard to any
answer scripts, there was no need to adopt any scaling
technique, moderation and therefore, the High Court
declined to interfere with the valuation in respect of the said
papers.
17. In respect of 4 optional subjects viz., Law,
Statistics, Hindi and Management, the variation beyond plus
or minus 20 marks (out of 300 marks) was nil in regard to
some papers and very marginal in other papers and
therefore, the High Court held there was no need to adopt
any scaling technique moderation. Accordingly they declined
- 148 -
to interfere with the valuation in respect of the said papers
also.
18. In regard to the optional subject Chemistry also
the variation was only in 3 answer scripts beyond plus or
minus 20 marks and therefore they concluded that there
were no irregularities and was no need for scaling technique
moderation and consequently they declined to interfere with
the valuation process. However, in regard to optional
subjects Agriculture and Marketing, Criminology and other
16 optional subjects and General studies, the variation
exceeded plus or minus 20 marks, which were substantial.
In the judgment they have given a tabular column pointing
out the marks assigned and the re-valuation marks assigned
by Head Examiner, Chief Examiner as to what is the original
marks, what is the revised figures and then held that the
large variation in the figures earlier furnished and
subsequently modified, as to the answer scripts that were
moderated raises a doubt about the actual number of
answer scripts reviewed by Head Examiner and Chief
- 149 -
Examiner. In respect of such variation no effort was made to
adopt the scaling technique of moderation by applying an
upward or downward revision to all the answer scripts
evaluated by the respective examiners. Further, in regard to
most of the subjects, the random review was not done to the
extent suggested in the guidelines i.e., (5% of top level
answer scripts and overall random review of 10%). No
minutes or record has also been maintained to show whether
moderation was done by the Head Examiners/Chief
Examiners in the manner required by the guidelines. The
High Court held that the answer scripts in the aforesaid
subjects required proper review. In fact, KPSC having
realized inadequacies/irregularities also agreed to do the
moderation by applying scaling Technique (as stated in their
memo dated 27.03.2002 filed on 22.07.2002).
19. The High Court also found that there was
serious irregularities in the review valuation by one of the
Chief Examiners (Professor K.S. Shivanna) in regard to some
candidates in particular, one K. Rameswarappa and his
- 150 -
family members (B.S.Nagaraj and B.S. Triveni), which when
disclosed in the news papers led to the filing of the writ
petitions. In fact the facts which were gathered by the sub-
committee constituted by KPSC itself in its investigation and
the conclusions were extracted in the said order. After
noting the same it was held that Professor K.S. Shivanna,
who randomly reviewed 127 answer scripts in History (I and
II) and General Studies (I and II) as Chief Examiner had
played havoc by awarding abnormal high marks in the table
in tabular column. The revised marks awarded are clearly
mentioned. Further, the High Court noticed that in some
cases, Professor K.S. Shivanna as Chief Examiner while
drastically increased the marks of a candidate in a particular
category also drastically reduced the marks of another
candidate, apparently to enable favoured candidates to have
a better chance of selection. The particulars are furnished.
As a result, the marks of candidates No.409001 and 131377
in category 3A were increased from 955 to 1013 and 902 to
977 whereas, the marks of the candidate No.111237 went
down from 1054 to 973. As a result the marks of candidate
- 151 -
(SC) No.117641 went up from 811 to 1049 and candidate
(SC) 11742 went down from 1072 to 1045. Having regard to
the number of answer scripts in History (4389 and 4386
answer scripts) and General Studies (10493 and 10425
answer scripts), it is doubtful whether Professor K.S.
Shivanna, who did random review in all 127 answer scripts
of History and General Studies subjects could have zeroed in
three papers each of K.Rameshwarappa and three members
(B.S.Nagaraj, B.S.Triveni and B.S.Hemalatha) or four papers
each of Pratap and M. Leela. Therefore final inevitable
inference was to the effect that there had been large scale
irregularities where Professor K.S. Shivanna was involved as
Chief Examiner.
20. On a closer scrutiny of the aforesaid material
and the report submitted by Professor K.S. Shivanna, the
High Court was satisfied that there were irregularities in the
random review of History (I and II) and General Studies (I
and II) by Professor K.S.Shivanna and having regard to
inadequate and/ or improper moderation of other seventeen
- 152 -
subjects (two papers each), the entire process of moderation
of more papers (i.e., 18 optional subjects and General
Studies) was required to be done afresh. Therefore, it
allowed the writ petitions in part and gave several directions
to the KPSC. It directed fresh evaluation in terms of para 78
of its order, directed KPSC to re-do a fresh moderation in
regard to the Eighteen optional subjects and also General
Studies in the manner suggested by KPSC in para (b) of its
memo dated 27.3.2002. It also directed the KPSC to revalue
the compulsory papers in (English and/or Kannada)
subjects in respect of those candidates who approached this
Court or the Tribunal for such revaluation before the date of
the order and after revaluation and moderation the KPSC
should redo the list of candidates to be called for personality
test, as per the Rules and then proceed with the selection as
per the Rules. If on revaluation, such candidates were found
to be qualified, they should also be considered for selection
of candidates for interview.
- 153 -
21. By an order dated 10.2.2003 I.A.III filed by KPSC
on 11.11.2002 for clarification of the order dated 11.10.2002
came to be rejected. I.A.IV filed by KPSC was allowed in part,
accepting the request of KPSC to carry out the
moderation/random review in respect of the 4 papers i.e.,
(Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science - I and II and
Geology - I and II). Again one more application was filed as
per I.A.5 seeking some clarification regarding the method of
scaling and it was also clarified.
22. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court,
the unsuccessful candidates Dr.K. Rameshwarappa and
others preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. However KPSC accepted the said judgment.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6172-
6222/2005, 6313/2005 and 6223-6312/2005 after hearing
all the parties held that they were satisfied that no
interference was called for as the High Court had taken care
to safe guard the interest of all concerned, to rule out the
possibility of any injustice directions have been issued to
- 154 -
deal with the peculiar facts of the case. Therefore Civil
Appeals came to be dismissed on 6.10.2005.
23. Subsequent to the order passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court affirming the order passed by this Court, in
terms of the direction issued in the writ petition, the KPSC
conducted preliminary examination as well as main
examination and announced the new eligibility list of 1932
candidates for personality test on 26.11.2005. The KPSC
conducted the personality test during the period from
28.12.2005 to 08.02.2006. On 13.02.2006, KPSC published
provisional selection list of 383 candidates and also called
for objections to that list. Objections were filed. On
consideration of the said objections, the KPSC published the
final selection list of 383 candidates on 28.02.2006.
Thereafter, the said final selection list was forwarded to the
Government for appointment. The candidates whose name
did not figure in the final list, challenged the final selection
list before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in March,
- 155 -
2006. The said applications are pending before the Tribunal
even to this date.
24. As no interim order was passed by the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, the Government
proceeded to issue appointment orders to 383 selected
candidates and accordingly, they were appointed for the post
in various departments of the Government. The petitioners
herein filed WP No.11550/2008 seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to thoroughly
enquire into the whole selection process of the years 1998,
1999 and 2004 batches, keeping in view the points that are
raised in this writ petition and as per the recommendation of
KK Mishra Committee’s report at Annexure-V and to take
suitable action.
25. In para 1 of the said writ petition, it is stated
that common question of law and facts are involved in this
writ petition. Although no relief is claimed by the
petitioners, separate and individual Court fee is paid in the
- 156 -
writ petition. In para 21, they have contended that the issue
of illegalities and irregularities raised in the writ petition are
very grave and affect the lives of not only the meritorious
candidates, but also the people of the State. They could be
brought out only on thorough and impartial investigation by
premier investigating authority, i.e., the Central Bureau of
Investigation. The petitioners had approached various
authorities of the State by making representation containing
the details mentioned in the writ petition seeking thorough
enquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation, but none of the
authorities has taken any steps in this regard. Having no
other alternative of getting substantial justice, the petitioners
have approached this Court invoking plenary powers.
26. In the writ petition, they have set out selection
process in brief and the irregularities committed in the
selection during 1998 batch and set out the process of
candidates selected without writing the examination. For
this, no corroborative information have been given by KPSC
to the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. It is the contention
- 157 -
of petitioners that the KPSC has buried the truth and has
mislead the High Court which has resulted in grave loss to
the meritorious candidates. The candidates are appointed
under reserved category without getting validity certificate,
the validity certificate is issued without necessary enquiry
and valid material. The candidates who are not in the merit
list, are selected by caste manipulation during the
preparation of eligibility list for the personality test. The
discrepancies are in the selection list, ratio in calling for
personality test, in accepting the reserved
caste/category/income certificate of the candidates, in
selection of the candidates without mentioning their
qualification, in selecting candidates who are over age etc.,
The action of respondent No.1 shows illegal nexus between
the individual candidate and respondent No.1 in accepting
bogus certificates, discriminatory treatment. Accordingly,
they pointed out the irregularities in 1999 and 2004
selection and they contend that the information furnished by
them is only the gist of matter and therefore, they wanted an
- 158 -
enquiry by the independent agency like Central Bureau of
Investigation.
27. When these writ petitions came up for
consideration before the learned Single Judge on
16.02.2009, after hearing the learned Counsel for the
petitioners, the Court observed as under:
“Though the petitioners have not been
selected and it is submitted that they have
already approached the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal for individual relief’s, in
this writ petition the petitioners want a direction
to the Central Bureau of Investigation to unearth
the fraud which is going on in the selection
process. It is in the nature of class action.
Therefore, it would be appropriate that this writ
petition be treated as a Public Interest Litigation
and accordingly dealt with.
Hence, petitioners are permitted to file one
more set of papers and thereafter, office was
directed to post it before the Court dealing with
Public Interest Litigation.”
- 159 -
28. On 12.03.2010, when the matter was listed
before the Division Bench of this Court, the learned
Government Advocate accepted notice for the Government.
The petitioner’s Counsel was permitted to take out notice on
the standing counsel for respondent No.2 and the matter
was ordered to be listed, next week. On 16.12.2010, when
the matter was listed before the bench, presided by the
Hon’ble Chief Justice, the Government placed on record the
report of Sri. K K Mishra, the Additional Chief Secretary and
Principal Secretary to the Government, Commerce and
Industries Department. Thereafter, the learned Principal
Government Advocate submitted that the Government would
order for investigation into the matter through the CID. The
said suggestion was accepted by the Court as fair and
reasonable. Thereafter, the Court directed the State
Government to get the matter investigated through the CID
by ensuring that the investigation is carried out by the
Officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of
Police.
- 160 -
29. This Court was of the view that the investigation
process deserved to be monitored on regular basis.
Therefore, they nominated Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ajit J Gunjal,
the then sitting Judge of this Court to monitor the
investigation. For the aforesaid purpose, they directed the
authorities to file all papers produced during the process of
investigation. Further, they directed that the investigating
officer should present for the consideration of Hon’ble
Mr.Justice Ajit J Gunjal, the entire investigation carried out
on fortnightly basis. Further, they observed that the
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ajit J Gunjal should record his synopsis
on the investigation file, when the same was placed before
him on every alternative Friday. It was made clear that it was
also open to him to point out the deficiencies and other
ancillary avenues, that were required to be probed during
the on going process of investigation. They expected that the
report should be presented to the Court by the CID as
expeditiously as possible not later than 31.03.2011. They
directed the office to list the writ petitions on 05.04.2011.
- 161 -
30. In the meanwhile, the candidates who were
successful, filed petition seeking review of the said order
dated 16.12.2010. The said review petition was ordered to
be listed along with writ petitions on 05.04.2011. On
24.05.2011, the enquiry report alongwith annexures
comprising two volumes was filed on behalf of the
respondents in Court. It was taken on record subject to all
just exceptions. Counsel for respondent No.2 undertook to
furnish the copy of enquiry report along with annexures to
the learned Counsel for the petitioner. On 21.06.2011,
learned Counsel for the petitioners expressed their agitation
against the report based on the enquiry conducted by the
Criminal Investigation Department, Bengaluru. They
submitted that the report itself was not sufficient and the
investigation could not be carried out owing to paucity of
time. The report is in respect of the allegation made in the
writ petition. Though extensive material has been furnished
by the petitioners to the investigating agency, no
investigation was carried out on the basis of the material
furnished.
- 162 -
31. The learned Addl. Government Advocate took
time to enable him to examine the matter further and to
obtain instructions, if necessary. On 12.07.2011 learned
Advocate General sought adjournment stating that the fresh
enquiry was sought to be conducted by registering a case.
Two weeks time was granted on 23.08.2011. Sri.B A
Padmanayana, Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID,
Bengaluru filed the affidavit dated 20.08.2011, wherein, he
stated that the entire investigation process would be
completed and the report would be submitted within six
months from the said date. The said affidavit reveals that
the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ajit J Gunjal the sitting Judge of this
Court was being kept abreast of the progress in the
investigation. The Court felt when the scope of investigation
had been enlarged, it might not be possible for the sitting
Judge of this Court to devote the time required to monitor
the investigation. Accordingly, at the joint request of learned
Counsel for rival parties, Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mohammed
Anwar, the former Judge of this Court was nominated to
monitor the investigation process.
- 163 -
32. When the report was submitted by CID, it was
made clear in the said order that in the process of
investigation, it was open to the petitioners or any other
persons to provide information as well as the material
connected with the process of investigation to Hon’ble
Mr.Justice Mohammed Anwar. Likewise, the investigating
agency should report to the Hon’ble nominated judge on
every alternative day so as to bring to his notice the progress
in investigation and also enable him to monitor the
investigation by guiding the investigating officer, if
necessary. Accordingly, all the writ petitions and review
petition stood disposed of in the aforesaid terms. In view of
the disposal of the main writ petitions, all pending
miscellaneous applications were disposed of as they did not
survive for consideration. On request made for extension of
time, two weeks time to file final report was granted on
20.03.2012. On 20.04.2012, the report of the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Bengaluru as well as Truth Labs of
Hyderabad were placed on record alongwith the Investigating
Report. In fact, chargesheet has also been filed on the basis
- 164 -
of investigation report. IA.II/2012 in W.P.No.9098/2009
came to be dismissed as infructuous. However, it was made
clear that if the petitioners were still dissatisfied, liberty was
granted to them to approach the Court by way of fresh
proceedings. Accordingly, the said proceedings came to an
end.
33. It is pertinent to point out at this stage that
based on the CID report, chargesheet was filed against the
persons who indulged in illegalities. In fact, in the covering
letter addressed by the office of Director General of Police to
the Chief Secretary, it was stated that certain irregularities
which attracted departmental action were noticed during the
course of investigation apart from the criminal acts
punishable under IPC. A report was prepared covering
irregularities which came to light during the course of
investigation in selection of 1998, 1999 and 2004 batches.
In the letter addressed on 09.04.2012 by the Director
General of Police to the Chief Secretary, it was mentioned
that the detailed investigation disclosed as under:
- 165 -
“A detailed investigation has disclosed
that:
1) Accused Dr H N Krishna is punishable
for offences U/s 418, 465, 468, 471,
506 r/w 109, 120(b) IPC.
2) Accused Ms Asha Parveen is
punishable for offences U/s 465, 468,
471, 420, 120(b) IPC.
3) Accused Ms Salma Firdose is
punishable for offences U/s 465, 468,
471, 420 IPC
4) Accused Sri K Narasimha is
punishable for offences U/s 465, 471,
468 R/w 120(b) IPC
5) Accused Sri P Gopi Krishna is
punishable for offences U/s 465, 468,
471 R/w 120(b) IPC
6) Accused Sri M B Banakar is
punishable for offences U/s 465, 468,
471 R/w 120(b) IPC
In this regard, chargesheet is submitted to
the jurisdictional Hon’ble I ACMM Court which is
- 166 -
pending trial vide CC No.8400/2012 and posted
to 28/06/2012 for hearing.
Investigation was also conducted in the
light of the allegations levelled in writ petition
Nos.11550/2008 and No.9098/2009 filed by the
petitioners namely Sri Khaleel Ahamed and
others and Sri B V Umesh respectively covering
the whole process of selection as directed by the
Hon’ble Court.
Certain irregularities which attract
departmental action were noticed during the
course of investigation apart from the criminal
acts punishable under IPC. A report is prepared
covering irregularities which came to light during
the course of investigation in selection of 1998,
1999 and 2004 batches. This report in three
volumes (report and two volumes of annexure) is
herewith being submitted to take appropriate
action as deem fit.”
34. As no follow up action was taken in terms of CID
report, the petitioners herein made a representation on
24.05.2012 as per Annexure-L. In the said representation to
the Chief Secretary set out the important facts which were
- 167 -
unearthed by CID from which, it is clear that there has been
a large scale illegalities, irregularities, malpractice,
arbitrariness and violation of directions of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka, which has resulted in vitiation of whole
selection process. Thousands of candidates throughout the
State have suffered due to this illegalities and irregularities.
The meritorious candidates have lost to the unscrupulous
elements within and outside the system. The people of the
State are suffering due to fact that they are being governed
and administered by such unscrupulous elements who have
been selected through illegal, subversive, irregular and
arbitrary methods. Therefore, they requested the
Government to take corrective action by scrapping/quashing
the selection list of Group A and B posts (Gazetted
Probationers) for 1998, 1999 and 2004 batches in toto and
to order for re-doing selection as per law in consonance with
established principle of selection and also strictly in
compliance with the orders/directions of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in WP No.12548-12589/2002, strictly
following the reservation and ratio policy and applying rules
- 168 -
appropriately in the selection including personality test and
to take immediate steps to stop all proceedings pertaining to
promotions of those candidates selected in the batches of
1998, 1999 and 2004 and not to promote any person
appointed on the basis of said vitiated selection.
35. The said representation was forwarded to the
Chief Minister on 12.6.2012 by the Prl. Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. The
Under Secretary to DPAR issued an endorsement on
9.7.2012 informing the petitioners that in the order dated
20.4.2012, High Court of Karnataka which dealt with
allegations of irregularities in the selection process of 1998,
1999 and 2004 Gazetted Probationers Posts, had not
quashed the selection made to the Gazetted Probationers
Posts, 1998, 1999 and 2004 and that it had not ordered for
any review of the aforesaid selection lists, hence there was
no scope for favourably considering the request of the
petitioners. Thus, according to the petitioners, in spite of the
Government order, in spite of the CID report, request made
- 169 -
by the Inspector General of Police to the Secretary and the
order of the Court, no action was taken by the Government.
Therefore they were constrained to file these present writ
petitions for the relief as set out above.
FACTS IN BRIEF :
36. The petitioners were aspiring candidates to the
posts of Group-A and Group-B (Gazetted Probationers). The
applications for the selection of the said Group-A and Group-
B posts were called in three batches by gazette notifications
in the year 1998, 1999 and 2004 respectively (hereinafter for
the sake of convenience, they are collectively referred to as
‘the three batches’ and separately as ‘the batch of that year’)
Petitioners and few others approached this Hon’ble High
Court in W.P.No.11550/2008 seeking a CBI enquiry in
respect of the three selection batches. W.P.No.11550/2008
was treated as PIL, as it was in the nature of class action,
vide orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 16.02.2009. The
petitioners filed the said writ petition on the basis of large
number of documents obtained under the Right to
- 170 -
Information Act, newspaper reports, Rules, Regulations and
report of Sri. K.K. Mishra, the then Addl. Chief Secretary and
Principal Secretary to Government, Commerce and
Industries Department, who had initially done an enquiry
regarding the irregularities and illegalities during the
selection process of 1998. In the said report of Sri. K.K.
Mishra, it was opined that a thorough and in depth
investigation was required and what had come to the surface
was only the proverbial tip of the ice berg. The Hon’ble Court
by order dated 16.12.2010 ordered for an investigation by
the CID under the monitorship of a Judge of the High Court
of Karnataka, with regard to the three selection batches. The
CID filed its report on 23.5.2011 before the Court. An
affidavit detailing the modalities of the enquiry was filed. In
the affidavit, it was undertaken that the investigation would
be conducted by the DIG. A Former Judge of this Court was
appointed to monitor the investigation process till the
submission of the report by CID. The Government submitted
the final report and the other reports to this Court on
20.4.2012. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be closed
- 171 -
with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court by way
of fresh proceeding, if they are still dissatisfied. The said
order was passed on 20.4.2012. In the writ petition, the
petitioners have set out in paragraph 13 the
findings/observations contained in CID report:-
a. The KPSC has violated the orders of the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P.No.12548-12589/2002, with regard to
the moderation and scaling of answer
scripts, which has resulted in the vitiation
of the entire selection. In the words of the
report” “This wrong step of KPSC has
resulted in tilting of marks and ultimately
results. It is serious violation of Hon’ble
High Court order and a serious lapse”.
b. The standard applied by the KPSC in the
selection varied from candidate to
candidate i.e., the selection process was
done arbitrarily.
c. Grave mistakes are noticed in the Kannada
and English versions of the question papers
which has resulted confusion in the
candidates.
- 172 -
d. It is also observed that candidates from one
particular category have been given more
weightage. As per the report: “The perusal
of the three lists of the candidates after the
Personality Test gives an impression that
certain category candidates are given more
weightage”.
e. The CID has also categorically observed
that liberal marks are given to some
candidates who had scored low marks in
Written Examination and low marks are
given to the candidates who has scored
high marks in the Written Examination.
f. The then Chairman Dr. H.N. Krishna, in
connivance with candidates and other
officials of the KPSC has committed
illegalities in the selection process, ranging
from illegally favouring certain candidates,
threatening meritorious candidates,
wrongly disqualifying eligible candidates,
accepting false-fabricated-bogus certificates
to favour candidates of his choice, cheating,
criminal intimidation, using forged
documents and genuine, criminal
conspiracy etc.,
- 173 -
g. There have been instances of category
violations.
h. Some of the selected candidates have
submitted forged-fabricated documents and
have got selected.
i. That, KPSC has destroyed vital documents,
including answer scripts, rolls etc.,
37. The CID, Karnataka registered a case and filed
charge-sheet in C.C.No.8400/2012 before the learned 1st
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore against
certain persons who were responsible for the illegalities and
irregularities which came to light during the said
investigation. The CID addressed a letter to the Chief
Secretary, Government of Karnataka enclosing the copy of
the final report and had summarized the chronology of the
initiation of the investigation, the action taken, including the
initiation of criminal proceedings, filing of charge-sheet etc.,
When no action was taken in terms of CID report and letter
written by DIG of CID, the petitioners made a representation
- 174 -
to the Government to take action. Relevant portion of the
said representation reads as following:
“a. Take corrective action by
scrapping/quashing the selection list of
Group ‘A’ & ‘B’ posts (Gazetted
Probationers) – 1998, 1999 & 2004, batches
in too; and
b. To order for redoing the selection as per law,
in consonance with established principles of
selection and also strictly in compliance
with the orders/directions of the Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka in W.P.Nos.12548
– 12589/2002, strictly following the
reservation and ration policy and applying
the Rules appropriately in the selection,
including in the Personality Test; and
c. To take immediate steps to stop all
proceeding pertaining to promotions of those
candidates selected in the batches of 1998,
1999 & 2004 and not to promote any person
appointed on the basis of the said vitiated
selection; and
d. To grant justice to the petitioners by
upholding the natural justice.”
- 175 -
38. Sri. K. K. Mishra in his report has opined that a
thorough investigation was required to unearth the large
scale irregularities, the Government of Karnataka has not
done so. Only when some of the petitioners herein, along
with others approached this Court seeking a CBI enquiry,
then the Hon’ble Court ordered for an enquiry, initially with
the monitoring of a Hon’ble Judge of this Hon’ble Court and
later under a former Judge of this Hon’ble Court, the
investigation was carried out. Initially the investigation did
not commence even after three months of ordering of the
same. Only when this Court ordered that the report should
be positively submitted before 24.05.2011, the report was
filed. When it was noticed that the investigation was not
carried on thoroughly and was not according to letter and
spirit of the order dated 16.12.2010, this Court ordered for a
thorough enquiry and gave six months’ time to submit the
final report. With much reluctance, the final report came to
be submitted on 20.4.2012. When no action was taken, the
petitioners gave representation at Annexure-L. The
- 176 -
respondents very casually issued an endorsement, which
reads thus:
“¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 113 ¸É£É�¤ 2012 ¢£ÁAPÀB 9.7.2012
»A§gÀºÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ 24.05.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀĪÀjUÉ,
ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ 21.05.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, ¹§âA¢
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ E¯ÁSÉ EªÀjUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«UÀ¼À PÀqÉUÉ UÀªÀÄ£À
¸É¼É�AiÀįÁVzÉ.
1998, 1999 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2004 UÉeÉmÉ�qï ¥ÉÇ�æ¨ÉõÀ£Àgïì ºÀÅzÉÝUÀ�¼À DAiÀÉÄÌ
¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉ¢zÉ J£À߯ÁzÀ CPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ 20.04.2012gÀ DzÉñÀ�zÀ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆ�ÃPÀ¸ÉêÁ DAiÉÆ�ÃUÀªÀÅ 1998,
1999 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2004£Éà ¸Á°£À°è UÉeÉ�mÉqï ¥ÉÇ�æ¨ÉõÀ£Àgïì ºÀÅzÉÝUÀ�½UÉ £ÀqɹzÀ DAiÉÄÌ
¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄÃ�®ÌAqÀ DAiÀÉÄÌ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ°è£À
DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjµÀÌj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¤zÉÃð�±À£À ¤ÃqÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä
ªÀÄ£À«UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À®Ä D¸ÀàzÀ«gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
(qÁ�. ªÀÄAUÀ¼À f.J¸ï.) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð
¹§âA¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ E¯ÁSÉ
(¸É�êÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ-1) EªÀjUÉ, ²�æà ±À«ÄÃgÀ PÀªÀįÁPÀgÀ UÁAªÀPÀgÀ,
ªÀÄ£É ¸ÀASÉåB 364, 23£Éà ¨ÁèPï, J¸ï.JªÀÄ.L.f.©.
2£Éà ªÀĺÀr, AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ 5£Éà ºÀAvÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ�¼ÀÆgÀÄ-64.”
- 177 -
39. Till today, the respondents have not taken any
action on the administrative side with regard to the
irregularities which resulted in the vitiated selection of
ineligible candidates. The candidates, who got selected in the
said vitiated selected process, are in the services of the State,
they are occupying high and influential posts in the
Government. Vested interests are preventing the
respondents from taking any action. The respondents are
duty bound to take appropriate actions, uphold law, fair play
and justice and are under oath of the Constitution not to act
arbitrarily, capriciously and unjustly. It appears that the
respondents will not take action unless so ordered by this
Court.
40. During the early proceedings which lead to the
initiation of enquiry, and during and after enquiry, general
public of the State watched with great expectations. The
print and electronic media gave extensive reporting of the
happenings. This is testimony to the fact that the general
public is keenly interested in the out come of the exposure
- 178 -
brought out by the enquiry. In these circumstances, the
petitioners have preferred this writ petition contending that
the Government has not taken any action on the basis of
CID report in respect of irregularities, illegalities pointed in
the said report. Secondly, in all the three selections, KPSC
did not follow the ratio in which the candidates had to be
called for the written examination and personality test and
the process of selection ran counter to rules as well as the
Government orders passed in this regard. Thirdly, it was
contended that when the order of this Court and the
Supreme Court prescribed 10% as moderation for answer
scripts, though KPSC undertook moderation in respect of
question papers more than 10% for the purpose of preparing
the list of eligible candidates, they confined this exercise only
to 10%. Even though patent illegalities were apparent from
the said marks in respect of answer scripts which were
evaluated more than 10%, they were not taken into
consideration and it was brushed aside.
- 179 -
41. After service of notice of this writ petition, the
learned Advocate General appearing for the State on
24.4.2013 submitted that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, regardless of the pleas and prayer
of the petitioners, the State Government was required to take
a stand in respect of the officers, who were inducted into
service after the process of selection which was, now subject
matter of prosecution in the criminal Court. Therefore, he
requested for some time to deliberate on the issue and place
before the Court, the actions proposed to be taken by the
State Government without or after appropriate orders of this
Court.
42. On 12.8.2013, the learned Addl. Advocate
General Sri. Kantharaj, submitted that even as the
statement of objections on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2
is already filed, without prejudice to the contentions
contained therein, the Government had initiated the exercise
of collecting information about the recruitment and
appointment of certain candidates who prima-facie,
- 180 -
appeared to have been beneficiary of the malpractices and
criminal offences alleged to have been committed during the
recruitment process. He submitted that necessary data for
the purpose of correlating names of such appointees with
their registration numbers and code numbers during the
process of selection was being called for from the KPSC and
unfortunately it was felt that co-operation was not being
extended by that institution. He therefore pointed out and
submitted that KPSC was required to be joined as party
respondent and directed to cooperate with the limited
enquiry being conducted by the State Government for the
purpose of identification of the appointees, who were selected
and recruited during the process of selection in question.
Accordingly, the KPSC was ordered to be impleaded as party-
respondent No.3 and notice was directed to be issued, to
K.P.S.C. in order to afford an opportunity of hearing and for
issuance of appropriate direction. It was made clear that it
will be open to KPSC to supply all the necessary information
as proposed to be and demanded by the State in the interest
of expeditious hearing of these matters.
- 181 -
43. On 26.8.2013, the Karnataka Public Service
Commission appeared through learned Senior counsel Sri.
P.S. Rajagopal, who stated on instruction, that the data and
information required as per the previous order dated
12.8.2013, as also such information as could be called for by
the State, would be supplied to them, within a period of one
week from the date of request of the Government. However,
the data stated to be necessary, as recorded in the previous
order, shall be supplied even without any further request
within a period of one week from said date.
44. On 05.09.2013, a memo filed on behalf of
respondent No.3-KPSC along with a sealed cover of the data
supplied by them to the State Government was taken on
record. KPSC also submitted in triplicate the tabulated
statements of details of the candidates who were called for
personality test during the selection process.
- 182 -
45. The order dated 20.09.2013 passed in this case
discloses that it was submitted and broadly agreed at the bar
that in view of the allegations made and the grievances
voiced on behalf of the petitioners, there appears to be three
broad areas and stages wherein irregularities are alleged to
have been crept in during the recruitment and selection
process conducted by respondent No.3 in the year 1998,
1999 and 2004. Those three areas or stages consist of
evaluation of marks and moderation of marks obtained by
the candidates at the time of main Written Examinations
and subsequently at the stage of awarding marks during
personal interview of the candidates, who were called for
interview on the basis of the marks obtained, moderated and
modified after the main Written Examinations. The third
stage arose after the matter was carried to this Court and
pursuant to the orders dated 11.10.2002 and 4.7.2003 in
W.P.No.12548/2002 and other allied matters. Serious
allegations were made in respect of implementation of those
orders and some of the allegations are even admitted by
respondent No.3 by the latest statement filed on their behalf
- 183 -
as on that date. It was put to the learned Senior counsel
appearing for respondent No3, learned Addl. Advocate
General and learned counsel appearing for the other parties,
whether a proper enquiry could be conducted with
representatives of all the parties concerned and whether
respondent No.3 KPSC will make available all the data and
information available with respondent No.3 for the scrutiny
by the representatives as aforesaid. Learned Senior counsel
appearing for respondent No.3 KPSC fairly submitted on
instructions and in presence of the Secretary of KPSC, Sri.
K.R. Sundar, that KPSC shall make all the data and
information in its possession available to the committee of
representatives, as may be appointed by the Court and
adequate facilities would be provided to the members of the
committee to access all the necessary information in the
premises of KPSC itself. Learned Addl. Advocate General
submitted that irrespective of any other enquiry or
proceeding in respect of same subject matter, the State
would like to participate in such enquiry through their
representatives and facilitate the full facts of the matter
- 184 -
being brought to light for further adjudication by this Court.
On the basis of such general consensus for furnishing and
analysis of the data and information, in relation to selection
and recruitment process as aforesaid, it was decided that
learned counsel Sri. Vikram Phadke and Mr. Basavaraj Patil
assisted by one of the petitioners would represent the
petitioners and learned counsel Sri. Reuben Jacob for KPSC,
learned Additional Advocate General, Sri. R. Devdas for the
State Government and learned counsel Sri. K. M. Prakash,
assisted by one of the selected candidates will form the
committee to independently access the information available
with KPSC. This Committee would meet on agreed dates for
collection and analysis of the data and as far as, may be,
within a period of one month, submit a joint or separate
reports after analyzing the data and the summary of the
conclusions drawn by them. KPSC would intimate
individually to all the members of the committee the timing
for attending the office of KPSC, during which period each
member of the committee shall be provided a common room
for calling for and accessing the necessary data and relevant
- 185 -
information, as may be required by them. It was also agreed
at the bar that the aforesaid representatives will be free to
take assistance from the persons of their choice for the
purpose of collection or analysis of the data or for the clerical
duties as may be required. It would be open for the members
of the committee to receive all the necessary data from
respondent No.3 KPSC personally on paper or in the form of
Compact Disc and it will not be necessary for all the
members of the committee to meet at one place at the same
time. However full facility, access and accommodation shall
be provided by KPSC in its own office for the purpose of
conducting the proceedings by the members of the
Committee. The Court hoped that the members of the
committee would work in a congenial atmosphere and it
shall be the duty of all the participants to maintain complete
confidentially about the information being gathered, sifted or
analysed and the conclusions being drawn. It would be in
the interest of all the parties concerned that individual
information or allegations of any of the parties or members of
the committee shall not be aired in public or made subject
- 186 -
matter of public debate directly or indirectly. Interim
application No.1/13 was allowed with a direction that the
applicant therein may be joined as respondents in the
aforesaid petitions at the appropriate number. The persons
so included are some of the successful candidates.
46. On 31.01.2014 the report of the Fact Finding
Committee was produced before the Court, it was taken on
record with the affidavit of respective parties.
On 21.3.2014 the Court observed as under:
“1. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3 –Karnataka Public Service Commission
(KPSC) has filed a memo. In the said memo, the
following information is furnished:
“A. List of three selected candidates whose
names do not figure in the new Personality Test
(PT) eligibility list.
B. List of 94 candidates who were earlier
called for PT but who do not figure in the new PT
list.
- 187 -
C. List of 94 candidates who have to be
interviewed as per the new PT list, which
candidates were not interviewed earlier.
D. Names of the persons who were
responsible or who carried out the task of fresh
moderation as per the order dated 10.10.2002
passed in W.P.No.12548/2002 & connected
matters.”
2. We have heard learned counsel for the
respective parties, on the memo.
3. “A” is with regard to list of three selected
candidates whose names do not figure in the new
Personality Test (PT) eligibility list. As far as this
list is concerned, learned Additional Advocate
General submits that State Government would
examine the matter and inform this Court on
26.03.2014 as to what steps would be taken with
regard to the aforesaid three candidates.
4. ”B” pertains to list of 94 candidates who
were earlier called for PT, but who do not figure in
the new PT list. As far as this list is concerned,
presently no action is going to be taken in case
those 94 candidates who were called for PT have
not been appointed.
- 188 -
5. “C” is with regard to list of 94 persons who
have to be interviewed as per the new PT list,
which candidates were not interviewed earlier.
Learned counsel for KPSC states that time may
be granted in order to ascertain the present
addresses of those candidates so as to notify
them about the date of interview. Once the
interviews are held, the effect of performance of
those candidates on the final selection list would
have to be considered and if the final selection list
requires an alteration, then those persons who
are presently working and would be affected
would also have to be heard in the matter.
Therefore, he seeks six weeks’ time for the said
exercise.
6. As far as the names of persons mentioned
in “D” is concerned, as the KPSC is admitting that
these persons were responsible for not carrying
out fresh moderation as per the order dated
10.10.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.12548/2002 and connected matters, we think
that individual notices must be issued to those
persons to show cause as to why Contempt of
Court proceedings under the provisions of
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, should not be
initiated as against them. Registry is therefore
- 189 -
directed to issue show cause notices to those five
persons under the provisions of the aforesaid Act
as per the addresses mentioned at page 364 of
the records (“D” above), summoning them to
appear before this Court on 11.04.2014.
List these matters on 26.03.2014 for
learned Additional Advocate General to make his
statement on “A” above and for further
consideration of the matter.”
47. Thereafter on 26.3.2014 the Court observed as
under:
“1. Learned Additional Advocate General has
filed a memo with notices issued to three Sate
Government officers pursuant to the previous
order, wherein the statement of learned
Additional Advocate General was recorded. It
was painful to see that an officer of the rank of
Under Secretary to Government would issue
notice pursuant to this proceeding with an
incorrect and misleading statement that “As per
the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka, action has to be taken as per law.” In
order to substantiate the plea of sincere action on
the part of the State Government, a letter dated
- 190 -
22.03.2014 addressed by the Principal Secretary
to Government, DPAR, to the Secretary, KPSC is
also annexed, in which some part is not legible. It
has taken about 30 minutes of arguments and
submissions and production of relevant judgment
to find out what the illegible missing part in the
document had to be, resulting in waste of public
time of the Court because of sheer negligence of a
public servant in preparing documents for
submission before the Court. Therefore, the
memo is ordered to be returned to the office of
learned Government Advocate, with direction to
collect by way of cost, Rs.500/- from the officer
concerned who has put the documents together
for perusal of the Court. The amount is to be
paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority within one week, after recovering it from
the officer concerned, in the office of learned
Additional Government Advocate or learned
Additional Advocate General. We hope that such
acts would not be repeated in future.
2. As noted in the previous order dated
21.03.2014, the Karnataka Public Service
Commissioner (KPSC) has requested time of six
weeks for arranging interviews of 94 persons who
were not interviewed earlier. It was submitted
- 191 -
by learned senior advocate for KPSC that they
have initiated the exercise of ascertaining
addresses of those 94 persons and the exercise of
calling them and holding their interviews may be
completed and the result thereof may be produced
before this Court within six weeks from today.
Therefore, he has sought time upto opening of the
Court after summer vacation.
3. Permitting KPSC to proceed with the
processing of aforesaid 94 cases, hearing is
adjourned for the present to 11.04.2014 when
KPSC will also be heard in respect of
I.A.No.2/2014 moved by the petitioners. KPSC
should complete the aforesaid process of
interview within six weeks as stated by its
learned senior counsel.”
48. On 11.4.2014 all the five persons to whom
notices had been issued in pursuance of the order dated
21.3.2014 appeared in person. They were also represented
by their respective counsel. They sought time to obtain
necessary copies of the record and file their statement. In
the meanwhile it was also noticed that one of the officers by
name Sri B.A. Harish Gowda had already filed his statement.
- 192 -
49. On 11.8.2014 these petitions were ordered to be
listed before another Bench of this Court for consideration.
That is how these petitions which were listed all these days
before the Bench presided by the Chief Justice was listed
before this Bench.
50. On 20.08.2014 this Court passed the following
order:
“ORDERS ON I.A.NOS.1 TO 5 OF 2013
It is a public interest litigation. Impleading
applicants are persons whose appointment is
questioned in this proceeding. Any order in
favour of the petitioners may affect them.
Therefore, they are all necessary parties to this
proceeding.
They have filed applications to come on
record to implead themselves and petitioners
have no objection. I.A.Nos.1 to 5 of 2013 are
allowed.
The petitioners to amend the cause title
showing impleading applicants as respondents.
- 193 -
Petitioners to furnish copies of the writ petition
along with all the annexures to all the impleading
applicants. Liberty is reserved to them to file
objections within two weeks if they choose to do
so.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners to file
amended cause title and a copy of the amended
cause title also be furnished to the respondents
Counsel.
The Government is directed to serve notice
of the writ petition to all the persons who are
selected, through department, except those who
are impleaded as parties. They can also issue a
public notice calling upon all those persons who
are selected and whose appointment is
challenged before this Court informing about the
pendency of the writ petition and mentioning that
they can voluntarily implead in the case as has
been done in the case today.”
51. On 16.9.2014 the learned Additional Advocate
General submitted that in terms of the order dated
20.08.2014 notices had been issued by way of paper
publication. He also submits that notices had been served
- 194 -
on all the officials. He filed a memo to that effect enclosing
copies of the notices as well as the paper publication. In
pursuance of the notices several persons filed applications to
implead themselves and some others engaged a counsel.
The Court observed at that juncture, that it was relevant to
remember that all the persons who are sought to be
impleaded were Group A and B officials. Pendency of this
writ petition and proceedings of the writ petition was widely
published in the news papers. These officials were aware of
the proceedings, yet they did not choose to appear probably
for the reason that they were not impleaded. Now due notice
is taken to them personally and through paper publication,
apart from the fact that news being widely published for
more than two years by the press in all the daily news
papers, all of them are deemed to have notice of these
proceedings.
52. In order to avoid confusion, this Court also
directed the petitioners to implead all the persons whose
selections are challenged in this writ petition and web host a
- 195 -
copy of the writ petition with their names, so that they could
access the same at their residence or at their place of work.
If any one of them wanted a hard copy, it was open for them
to approach the learned counsel for the petitioners, make a
Xerox copy and return the original to the petitioners so that
others could have the same benefit. Subsequently the
petitioners also filed a amended petition. Therefore, the
Court proceeded to observe that further proceedings could
be taken on the assumption that all of them had notice of
the same. Any of the officials who were impleaded in the
writ petition had any objections, they were at liberty to file
the same within 15 days from the date of the said order. The
applications filed by some of the persons to come on record
as petitioners were kept in abeyance. Only the concerned
officials, who wanted to come on record as respondents were
allowed. In fact the web site address where the writ petition
could be accessed was also mentioned as
“www.hccasekpscselection.com.”
- 196 -
53. On 9.10.2014 an order came to be made
directing that all the petitioners should keep a complete set
of writ papers along with all annexures in the High Court
Library to enable the respondents who ever is not in
possession of the entire papers to look into the papers and if
necessary to obtain the Xerox copies of the same and file a
suitable reply. It was also made clear that all those persons
whose selection was challenged in these proceedings were at
liberty to file objections even if their names are not shown as
respondents in any of these petitions or in the cause list.
54. On 11.11.2014 this Court after narrating all the
aforesaid facts in brief opened the sealed cover submitted by
the KPSC to the Court and thereafter passed the following
order :-
“12. In the course of arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioner pointed out from the report
submitted by the Advocates how the K.P.S.C has
violated the terms of the order passed by this
Court. Correspondingly, when we looked into the
re-moderation made by the K.P.S.C we find they
admit the mistake and they have done re-
- 197 -
moderation. In the said report, they have also
pointed out how this re-moderation effects
persons, how persons who are selected to Group
‘A’ post on account of this re-moderation will fall
in Group ‘B’ category and persons who are in
Group ‘B’ category will move to Group ‘A’
category and some of them will go out of the list
and how within the same service ranking will
vary. Now all the persons are before the Court.
The said re-moderation by the KPSC is bound to
affect few of the persons who are before this
Court. As stated, by this Court in the earlier order
they have to be heard. Therefore, we are of the
view we should give an opportunity to all those
persons who are going to be affected by the
report submitted by the K.P.S.C. now. It is also
possible that in the very report there may be
some mistakes, which may affect their interest
and they should be given an opportunity to point
out those mistakes if any. Therefore, what is kept
in the sealed cover in secrecy should be made
known to all the persons who are before the Court
as it relates to public employment and whether
the K.P.S.C and Government has made
recruitment in accordance with rules.
- 198 -
13. Having regard to the number of persons who
are before this Court as we did in case of writ
petitions and as all the persons who are before
this Court are either Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’
employees and have completed about 9 years of
service and well versed in computer knowledge, it
would be appropriate that the report cum final list
prepared by the K.P.S.C is web hosted by them
as well as the Government. Therefore, the K.P.S.C
shall make available a copy of the report to the
government. They shall web host the said report
in their web site and if any persons approaches
them a hard copy also be made available to them.
On such web hosting, all such persons who are
aggrieved by the contents of the same are at
liberty to file objections, appear before this Court
personally or through their counsel and bring it to
the notice of the Court their say in the matter so
that the Court would be in a better position to
appreciate the arguments of all persons
concerned. As this matter is being heard on day
to day basis, this web hosting should be done
within 24 hours and any objection to the said
report should be filed before this Court by next
date of hearing after serving a copy on the
opposite side within three days.
- 199 -
14. Call this matter for further hearing on
18.11.2014. Registry is directed to furnish a copy
of this order to the Government Advocate as well
as the K.P.S.C and web host this order forthwith.”
55. On 18.11.2014 all the respondents who were
impleaded were duly served and they had engaged counsel to
represent them. They also filed their objections by the order
dated 11.11.2014 where we had directed the KPSC to web
host the list prepared by them after re-moderation and fresh
interview which was handed over to the Court in a sealed
cover to enable all the affected persons to have their say in
the matter. Accordingly objections were filed to the same.
On their behalf it was brought to the notice of this Court
that these newly impleaded respondents were not aware of
the earlier proceedings and the orders passed by this Court
till they were impleaded as parties. They submitted that for
them to make effective representation, it was necessary to
have a glimpse of those proceedings. They also wanted to
know under what circumstances the KPSC took up the re-
moderation and the procedure they had followed to enable
- 200 -
them to make their case effectively. This Court found
substance in the said two submissions and therefore this
Court directed the High Court registry to web host the orders
passed from the inception till now as recorded in the order
sheet, to enable all persons who were impleaded as parties to
have the first hand information about the proceedings which
had taken place before the Court and also various orders
passed from time to time, till now. Further KPSC was
directed to file the affidavit setting out under what
circumstances they took up re-moderation and also the
procedure they had followed in the re-moderation by the next
hearing date. Further they were directed to web-host the
said affidavit after it was being duly sworn to, before
22.11.2014 to enable the respondents to have the requisite
information so that they could have their say i.e.,
24.11.2014.
56. Some of the respondents, aggrieved by the order
dated 11.11.2014, preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.31461/2014 before the Apex Court. The Supreme Court
- 201 -
by an interim order dated 21.11.2014 stayed all further
proceedings in this writ petition. This Court directed the
posting of the matter only after the Special Leave Petition
before the Apex Court was disposed of. The Apex Court took
up the said Special Leave Petition on 5.2.2016 for hearing
and passed the following order:
“We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties at considerable length. We do not see any
merit in this Special Leave Petition, it is hereby
dismissed. The interim order dated 21.11.2014
shall stand vacated. We make it clear that we
have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the contentions that may be open to the parties to
be urged before the High Court including whether
the report which is web hosted can or cannot be
accepted in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, the petitioners and all other affected
parties shall have six weeks time to file
objections, if any before the High Court.”
Thereafter all the respondents have filed their
objections.
- 202 -
STAND OF THE KPSC:
57. In these proceedings KPSC filed its statement of
objections to the findings of the CID report on 18.9.2013. It
also filed the statement of objections to the writ petition on
7.10.2014. They also filed a counter affidavit in respect of
the conclusions contained in the report of the Fact Finding
Committee. On 19.02.2014, lastly, they filed an affidavit in
compliance of the order dated 18.11.2014 explaining the
process involved in re-moderation of marks. Broadly
following are the grounds of defence taken by the KPSC in
these proceedings.
58. The petitions have been filed as Public Interest
Litigations (PILs). Admittedly all the petitioners in the above
petition are unsuccessful candidates who have participated
in the selection process of Gazetted Probationers of 1998,
1999 or 2004 selection. It is well settled law that PILs in
service matters are not maintainable and all the above cases
are liable to be dismissed in limine. Most of the petitioners
in the above petition have already approached the Karnataka
- 203 -
Administrative Tribunal by filing separate applications
seeking relief in respect of selection which is the subject
matter of these writ petitions. They have furnished the
details of the applications filed by the petitioners in the
above petition. The fact that most of the petitioners have
already approached the KAT for similar relief or relief specific
to their non selection, has been suppressed. The fact that
most of the petitioners have been prosecuting the parallel
proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of this Court.
The petitioners who have suffered adverse orders before the
KAT have allowed those orders to become final. All those
petitioners, who have not challenged their non-selection
earlier cannot at this point of time question their non-
selection by belated petitions. On these grounds these writ
petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine.
59. The KPSC, notwithstanding the contumacious
conduct of the petitioners and non maintainability of the
PILs, as a responsive constitutional body, has welcomed the
idea of forming a Committee in the present proceedings and
- 204 -
has taken corrective action based on the admitted findings in
the CID report having concern in transparency and larger
values. Having regard to the prayer made in the earlier writ
petition, the submission of the Government is that the
entrustment of the investigation of the CID culminated in the
CID submitting its report. In that context they submit that
the Commission has fully extended its co-operation and has
co-operated in the investigation conducted by the CID.
However, except for one adverse finding against the
Commission (which has admitted to other adverse findings
in the CID report were erroneous and incorrect) they
objected to the said report. The CID police has undisputedly
lodged criminal proceedings against the concerned persons
including former office bearers and officials of the
Commission and the said criminal proceedings are pending
as on date. On the CID police filing the investigation report
the said writ petitions were closed. Thereafter some of the
petitioners approached the Government by way of
representations in response to which the Government issued
endorsement dated 9.7.2012. Challenging the said
- 205 -
endorsement, writ petition is filed. In the representation of
the petitioners to the Government, they sought for
scrapping/quashing the selection list of GP 1998, 1999,
2004 selection and for re-doing all the selection process.
The Government could not have considered such request of
the petitioners of cancellation of the entire selection. In this
writ petition as controversies surrounds the findings
contained in the CID report, Commission has filed a
statement dated 20.9.2013 indicating its stand on the
findings of the CID report. In the said statement the
Commission has specifically stated the stand of the
Commission in respect of each selection and finding
contained in the CID report. In order to avoid repetition the
said statement dated 20.9.2013 is made as part and parcel
of those statement of objections.
60. By an order dated 20.09.2013 this Court was
pleased to appoint a Fact Finding Committee, which
contained in all five advocates, two advocates represented
petitioners, one advocate represented KPSC, learned
- 206 -
Additional Government Advocate for the State Government
and the one Advocate for the selected candidates. The
members representing the selected candidates shall have to
file a separate report and the other members were to file
another report. A report filed by four members of the
Committee and one member representing the Commission
was filed before this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the KPSC in respect of the conclusion
arrived/contained in the report of the Fact Finding
Committee. The said counter affidavit dated 19.2.2014
which was filed in the open Court on 19.2.2014 could be
read as part and parcel to the objections in order to avoid
repetition.
61. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court
on 18.11.2014, the Secretary to the KPSC filed an affidavit
setting out under what circumstances, the Commission took
up re-moderation and also set out the procedure that the
Commission has followed in the re-moderation.
- 207 -
62. It is stated that during the pendency of the
above writ petitions, on 2.8.2013 a meeting was called for by
the Principal Secretary to DPAR in order to discuss the
action required to be taken by the State Government in
pursuance of the CID report filed in W.P.Nos.11550/2008
and W.P.No.9098/2009. He required the Secretary of the
Commission to participate in the said meeting. At that point
of time, KPSC was not arrayed as a party respondent in the
above writ petitions and KPSC was not aware of the
proceedings in the above writ petitions. Thereafter by a
communication dated 27.08.2013 the Principal Secretary,
(DPAR) wrote to the Commission requesting the KPSC to take
action/corrective action as per the orders of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka and furnish a detailed report to the
Government. They also requested the Commission to take
action on the allegations/findings of the CID in respect of the
Gazetted Probationers Examinations of 1998, 1999 and
2004, as per the decisions in the meeting held under the
Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to the Government.
Further the Commission was required to take action with
- 208 -
specific reference to the most serious allegation No.3 and
findings of the CID thereon with reference to the 1998
Gazetted Probationers Examination, redo the moderation
and scaling in accordance with the directions dated
11.10.2002 and further to redo the selection lists 1998,
1999 and 2004, as indicated above, if necessary, particularly
identifying the illegal beneficiaries, who have been appointed.
Once commission was also asked to identify fresh
candidates, who were to be included in their places and to
send final select lists by following the required procedures to
indicate the action taken against the officials of the KPSC,
viz., Sri K. Narasimha, Sri. Gopikrishna and Sri. M.B.
Banakar, who were indicted in the CID report. In the
meanwhile the KPSC was added as a party respondent in the
above petitions and appeared before the Court through a
counsel on 26.08.2013. After entering appearance they
submitted the data and information required as per the
previous order dated 12.08.2013 and also undertook to
furnish such information as may be called for by the State
Government within a period of one week from the date of
- 209 -
request of the Government. They also pleaded their inability
to the Government to re-do the selection and submitted a
report stating that it was not within the powers of the
Commission as once the final selection list was published
and forwarded to the Government, it would become ‘functus
officio’. On verification of the records of the then Secretary,
it was found that the annulled Chief Examiner (CE) and
Head Examiner (HE) marks had been taken into
consideration for the purpose of moderation and scaling,
which was contrary to the directions issued by this Court in
W.P.No.12548-89/2002 and connected matters. The
Commission wrote to the Government that the cross
checking exercise had been undertaken and considering the
enormity of the task, they sought for four weeks time to
complete the process and to provide information including
the marks awarded by the examiner, head examiner and
chief examiner and any other relevant information the
Government may desire.
- 210 -
63. They also stated that, the Commission wrote to
the Government on 17.9.2013 stating that after undertaking
the exercise of crosschecking in respect of the moderation
and scaling of 1998 batch, it was found that a total of nine
answer scripts covering different subjects were required to be
submitted to third valuation. Giving the details of the said
scripts, the Commission requested for two weeks time to
complete the process of third valuation and to convey the
outcome. They admitted the finding of the CID report to the
effect that the order passed by the High Court in Writ
Petition Nos.12548-89/2002 was violated. Further they
state, in pursuance of the said finding, the Commission is
re-doing the exercise of moderation and scaling in order to
find out, if in fact there would be tilting of the total marks
secured by a candidate and consequently the select list, if
the marks awarded by Chief/Head Examiners were not
taken into consideration during moderation and scaling. It
was found that a total of nine scripts in four subjects were
required to be subjected to third evaluation. The same was to
be followed by preparation of merit list and if any fresh
- 211 -
candidate comes within the 1:5 eligibility range (as per
merit/reservation) then personality test would be arranged
for the said candidates. Based on the outcome, merit list
needed to be re-drawn as also the final select list. Then they
have referred the appointment of Fact Finding Committee. In
the meantime, the Commission completed the third
valuation of the additional answer scripts required to be
subjected to third valuation and they have also informed the
Court that, 94 candidates who were not interviewed earlier
found a place in the said list and 94 candidates who were
interviewed earlier did not find a place in the list. They
furnished the requisite information in a sealed cover.
Thereafter, they referred to the order passed by this Court
dated 11.11.2014 making available the list which was kept
in the sealed cover. They proceeded to set out how the
moderation and scaling was undertaken. They said that, the
moderation and scaling was done only in respect of the
subjects where the marks awarded by the Head Examiners
and Chief Examiners were annulled.
- 212 -
64. The first step involved was crosschecking of the
marks entered in the computer database paper-wise and
examiner-wise in order to tabulate the marks awarded by
original examiner and discard marks awarded by the Head
Examiner and the Chief Examiner. In the process of first
moderation examiner-wise and paper wise, 10% answer
scripts (5% top and 5% random) were already picked-out for
second valuation and valued. The said second valuation
marks of 10% answer scripts were compared with the
original examiner marks to determine the difference between
the two marks. They made it clear that if the marks awarded
by the Head Examiner and theChief Examiner had been
taken into consideration earlier in respect of the 10% picked-
out answer scripts, there should be change in the difference
of marks from the first moderation to the re-moderation, as
the difference in marks in re-moderation is between the
original examiner and the second valuation marks.
However, in case of picked-out scripts, which were not
corrected either by the Head Examiner or the Chief Examiner
or both, then the difference of marks would remain the same
- 213 -
as in the case of first valuation. Thereafter, the average
variation is arrived at by adding the difference in marks in
respect of 10% picked-out answer scripts divided by the
number of answer scripts picked-out. If the average variation
is more than plus(+) or minus(-) 20, then the original
examiner marks of all the scripts evaluated by the said
examiner is added or subtracted by such average variation
and the final scaled marks would be after such addition or
subtraction. In the event of average variation being less than
plus(+) or minus(-) 20, then no addition or subtraction is
necessary and the original examiner marks have been
retained. However, in individual cases of picked-out answer
scripts, if the difference between the marks awarded by the
original examiner and the second valuation is more than
plus(+) or minus(-) 20, such answer scripts are subjected to
third valuation and the marks awarded in the third valuation
is taken as the final marks. In the first moderation after
arriving at the average variation, addition or subtraction was
carried out by using Head Examiner or Chief Examiner
marks, where they have valuated the scripts. However, in the
- 214 -
case of scripts evaluated only by original examiner, even in
the first valuation, the addition or subtraction was only from
the original examiner marks.
65. Illustration contained in CID report at pages 25
to 38 does not give the correct scope of correction, inasmuch
as, the CID has pointed out the fact that, at the stage of
addition or subtraction of the average variation, the Head
Examiner’s and the Chief Examiner’s marks have been used
instead of original examiner’s marks. However, if in case of
the first valuation of the Head Examiner or Chief Examiner
marks were used for calculating the average variation (in
respect of picked-out answer scripts), then in the re-
moderation even the average variation would undergo a
change. CID did not appreciate this aspect and hence, the
calculation given in the CID report in pages 25 to 36 cannot
be used in order to determine the correct difference of marks
on re-moderation.
- 215 -
STAND OF THE STATE:
66. In the Statement of Objections, they have
referred to the recruitment of 403 Group-A and Group-B
posts from the initial stage till the matter was concluded in
the Apex Court which we have clearly set out under the
heading background of the case in respect of 1998 batch.
Thereafter, they have stated that in the background of the
alleged large scale irregularities in the valuation of answer
scripts of 1998 Gazetted Probationers Examination, the
Government in its order dated 4.2.2013 entrusted the matter
to Sri K.K.Mishra, then Additional Chief Secretary and
Principal Secretary to the Government, to investigate and to
submit his report. Accordingly, Sri K.K.Mishra investigated
the matter and submitted his report to Government on
4.4.2003 recommending to entrust the matter to Karnataka
Lokayukta for further investigation. The Karnataka
Lokayukta in its letter dated 26.9.2003 reported that, there
is no need to enquire into the matter once again since the
matter has already been investigated by the Additional Chief
Secretary. After examining the issue in detail, the
- 216 -
Commission in its order dated 18.1.2003 cancelled the
candidature of 10 candidates who participated in the above
selection process and permanently debarred them in any
competitive examinations to be conducted by the
Commission. A complaint was also filed in the Vidhana
Soudha police station. The Government in its order dated
16.4.2004 entrusted the matter to CID for investigation. The
CID submitted its report on 20.9.2006 and sought
permission of the Government to prosecute Sri Monnappa,
the then Secretary of Karnataka Public Service Commission.
The Government in its order dated 5.1.2008 accorded
permission under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure
Code to prosecute Sri Monnappa. The CID filed criminal
case in No.5540/2008 before the 4th Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore. The charge sheet
was also filed in the above case on 14.3.2008 and the matter
is pending before the Court. Enquiry has also been
contemplated against one Sri K.Rameshwarappa, the Deputy
Director of Food and Civil Supplies, a candidate in the above
said competitive examination, who figured in the
- 217 -
investigation report. In this way, action has been initiated
against those responsible for the irregularities said to have
been committed in the valuation of the answer scripts of
1998 Gazetted Probationers Examination.
67. Then they have referred to filing of Writ Petition
No.11550/2008. The Hon’ble High Court by its order dated
23.8.2011 directed the CID to investigate the matter within
six months. The Hon’ble High Court has also ordered to
appoint Justice Mohammed Anwar, a retired Judge of this
Court to monitor the investigation and filing of the report
before the Court and the order was passed by disposing of
the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a
representation to the Government on 21.9.2012 and
24.5.2012 requesting the Government to cancel the
recruitments of 1998, 1999 and 2004 batch and to redo the
select list of the candidates. The Government after
considering the representation of the petitioners, rejected the
same by issuing endorsement dated 9.7.2012, which is
impugned in the writ petition. The endorsement issued by
- 218 -
the Government on 9.7.2012 is just and proper and needs
no interference by this Court. The petition filed by the
petitioner is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed.
68. The petitioners ought to have approached the
Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, if they are
aggrieved by the said endorsement, instead they have
approached this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is
misconceived and not maintainable in law and liable to be
dismissed. They also submitted that, the Karnataka Public
Service Commission ought to have been made a party to the
proceedings as they are challenging the select list of the
candidates of 1998, 1999 and 2004 prepared by the KPSC
and therefore they contend that the petition is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties and the petition is liable to
dismissed. Thereafter, they have submitted that, the CID
after having conducted the investigation filed
C.C.No.8400/2012 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Bangalore against Dr.H.N. Krishna, the
then Chairman of Karnataka Public Service Commission,
- 219 -
Mrs. Asha Parveen, Tahsildar, Smt.Salma Firdose, Assistant
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Smt. K.Narasimha, Sri
P.Gopikrishna and Sri M.B.Banakar, staff of the Karnataka
Public Service Commission by framing charges under
various provisions of the IPC. The matter is pending before
the Criminal Court. In addition to the above, the
Government in its letters dated 8.6.2012 and 10.9.2012, the
Revenue Department had been requested to take action
against Smt.Asha Parveen, who is working as Tahsildar.
Again in the letters dated 8.6.2012 and 10.9.2012, the Co-
operative Department has been requested to take action
against Smt.Salma Firdose, since she is working as Assistant
Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the control of Co-
operation department. In this way, the Government is
sincerely taking action against those who are indicted in the
CID report. That being the state of affairs, the allegation of
the petitioners that, the Government is not contemplating
any action against those who are figured in the CID report is
unfounded and the same is liable to be rejected. Therefore,
they have sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
- 220 -
Statement of Objections filed by the successful
candidates:
69. Statement of Objections filed on behalf of the
respondents – successful candidates - Respondents No.16 to
18, 20 to 22, 25 to 27, 72, 80, 84, 117 to 120, 124 to 125,
128 to 133, 136, 137, 139, 140 to 149, 150, 151, 154 to 156,
238, 243, 249, 303, 310, 356, 357, 359, 361, 365, 366, 368,
369, 371, 377, 380, 383, 386, 388, 415, 427 to 429, 439,
441, 460, 479, 487, 492, 495, 503, 509, 518, 551, 580, 582,
611, 612, 615, 616, 620, 625, 628, 630, 632, 645, 652, 654,
661, 666, 677, 679, 680, 682, 691, 696, 699, 703, 705, 706,
707, 710, 713, 714, 715, 719, 720, 721, 722, 724, 725, 726,
727, 728 and 475.
70. After referring to the chequered history of this
case as set out by us above, these respondents have
traversed the allegations in the writ petition in their
statement of objections from paragraph 23 onwards. They
contend the petitioners were aspiring candidates to the post
- 221 -
of Group-A and Group-B (Gazetted Probationers) for the
years 1998, 1999 and 2004. The grievance of the petitioners
are in the nature of personal interest and no public interest
is involved in the above writ petition. Hence, writ petition
filed by the petitioners is required to be dismissed in limini
with cost. Then they have referred to the judgments of the
Supreme Court on the question of how public interest
litigations have to be dealt with. Then in paragraph 26 they
have set out the marks of the selected candidates before
moderation, after moderation and the difference between the
two moderations. Then they contend that, Supreme Court
has held that, “for the mistake of the appointing authority,
the selected candidate should not made to suffer”. The
merited and untainted candidates can be segregated.
Cancellation of entire selection process on the ground that
the process smacks of mala fides and mal practices was not
justified”. The CID has not stated anything anywhere that
the respondents are responsible for the alleged non-
compliance of the order if any passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.12548-12589/2002. If at
- 222 -
all anything wrong done by the Karnataka Public Service
Commission, the petitioners have to redress their grievance
in the petition filed by them before the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal. When the responsibility of
compliance of the order of the High Court is entrusted to the
Secretary of the Karnataka Public Service Commission, if
they are in mistakes and illegalities, he is responsible and
CID has not chosen to take any action against the Secretary
and Secretary has not been made an accused for his alleged
mistakes, if any. It shows the CID has not conducted the
investigation in a fair manner.
71. The petitioners have misinterpreted the
observation made by the CID. By reading the last para at
page No.53 of CID report, prima-facie it appears that the CID
has not conducted the investigation fairly. Then they have
referred to some cases of mistakes in the selection. Then
they have set out the powers and duties of the Secretary of
the Karnataka Public Service Commission. Then they have
referred to the acceptance of false, forged, documents and
- 223 -
bogus certificate. There have been instances of category
violation. It is submitted that, a candidates though applied
under the category, by virtue of merit, they have selected
under G.M. It is pertinent to mention that, neither the
Chairman nor any member wrote any remarks ‘consider or
not to consider’, it is the duty of the Secretary of the
Commission to look into it and to decide whether to accept
or reject the recommendation made by the Commission. The
Secretary is the final authority to decide an issue.
72. Then they have referred to various actions taken
in pursuance of the CID and they submit that the petitioners
have filed the present writ petitions by suppressing the fact
of pendency of the litigations before the KAT. Hence, these
writ petitions are to be dismissed for suppression of facts
and also for the reason that the petitioners have not
approached this Court with clean hands. Until and unless
the allegations are proved, based on the alleged allegations
made in a criminal case action cannot be taken in service
matters. Though, the Government has taken the action by
- 224 -
suspending the candidates, those candidates have
approached the KAT and got the stay and the said matters
are pending for consideration and therefore, they sought for
dismissal of these writ petitions.
Statement of Objections filed by other respondents:
73. Statement of objections of respondent Nos.32,
33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 59, 60,
62, 63, 67, 73, 76, 110, 111, 116, 142, 157, 237, 247, 264,
265, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 273, 274, 283, 284, 285, 286,
297, 308, 315, 322 and 324.
74. After referring to the earlier proceedings which
are set out above and the various judgments of the Apex
Court, these respondents have contended that as could be
seen from the report submitted by the investigating authority
they have pointed out some of the procedural irregularities
such as moderation of answer books, receiving degree
certificate in addition to marks cards and considering the
reserved candidates under general categories according to
- 225 -
their merits etc., Admittedly the selected candidates
performed very well in the written examination and interview
when compared to the petitioners and they are qualified for
the said posts. Accordingly, they have been selected and
appointed to various posts and also working for past 08
years. Hence, there is no substance in such contention after
such a long lapse of time. Several candidates claimed
reservation under various categories at the time of
preliminary examinations and at the time of main
examinations for having performed very well in the written
examination. They have secured higher marks and got
interview under general category having pushed to general
category, it is not necessary to verify the validity of the claim
for reservation. After referring to the judgment of the Apex
Court it is contended that reserved candidate is entitled to
compete for the general category or reserved category. Hence,
there is no substance in the contention of the petitioners
regarding selection of reserved candidates for the posts
meant for general category. The Officers of CID pointed out
- 226 -
three alleged irregularities and in relation to 1998
recruitment batch, answered as under:
1. Violation of ratio policy: as observed in the
KAT court itself classification is done in
accordance with Government Order dated
20.06.1995.
2. Category manipulation: the candidates
applied under reserved category have
scored higher marks than general category
in the interview and selected under general
merit as observed in the report itself.
3. Improper acceptance of applications inspite
of grave discrepancy and violation of
recruitment rules.
75. Out of 08 candidates listed under this category,
7 candidates have not enclosed degree certificates but
enclosed final year marks card or cumulative grade card. In
respect of candidates who have completed all the years of
degree in first attempt along with merits in the final year,
marks performance of all the years is available. As per the
rules, the candidates have to produce proof of passing the
- 227 -
degree containing the marks of all the years is sufficient
proof of passing it. Apart from that the allegation is not
based on marks in the academic qualification but on the
basis of marks secured in the competitive examinations.
They have secured more marks than the petitioners and
selected for number of posts . Hence, there is no substance
in the said contention.
76. All these respondents were appointed as
Gazetted Probationers in the year 2006 and their period of
probation was declared after they passed required
departmental examinations. Most of them have been
promoted to next higher cadre and are discharging their
duties sincerely and honestly. After 07 years from the date
of their appointment, they are impleaded as respondents to
contest these matters. Hence, on the ground of delay and
laches, itself, the above writ petitions have to be dismissed.
77. In the case of any irregularity committed
intentionally by any individual it has to be enquired into and
- 228 -
it is open to take action as per Rule 20 of the General
Recruitment Rules 1977 but entire selection cannot be called
in question as held by the Apex Court in a number of
judgments. The allegation, the alleged irregularities are
attributed to previous chairman of the KPSC Sri.
H.N.Krishna. Even the allegation of favouritism and other
allegations are made without impleading him as a party in
the above proceedings and therefore, the petition is to be
dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore,
they have sought for dismissal of the said writ petitions.
78. Respondents No.2 and 7 have filed additional
statement of objections virtually reiterating what they have
said in the earlier objection statement.
79. These respondents have filed their objection
relating to 1999 batch. They have traversed the allegation in
the writ petitions paragraph wise. They have denied the
allegation and they have also reiterated the objection what
- 229 -
others stated in the statement of objection and they wanted
writ petitions to be dismissed.
80. Some of the other respondents have also filed
separate statement of objections but the contention taken
therein is already set out above and they have only reiterated
the same in the statement of objections.
ARGUMENTS
81. Sri M.B.Nargund, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners contended that, in the selection
of the years 1998, 1999 and 2004, there is a gross violation
of ratio of candidates to be admitted to written examination
and called for Personality test, offending Articles 14 and
16(1) of the Constitution of India. Secondly, he contended
that the directions issued by this Court in W.P.Nos. 12548-
589/2002 for fresh evaluation in terms of Para 78 of its
order and the direction to redo a fresh moderation in regard
to 18 option subjects and also General Studies in the
manner suggested by the KPSC in Para B of its memo dated
- 230 -
27.3.2002 is not complied with. Thirdly, the KPSC has
restricted its moderation and revaluation only to the extent
of 10% of the answer scripts and the answer scripts which
was subjected to such revaluation above 10% is not taken
into consideration which is again a contravention of the
directions issued by this Court and, therefore, he submitted
the entire selection is vitiated and liable to be set aside.
82. Per contra, Sri P.S.Rajagopal, the learned
senior counsel appearing for KPSC, submitted that, the
procedure followed in preparing the list of eligible candidates
to take the written examination as well as the personality
test is in terms of the Government Order dated 3.5.1994 and
20.6.1995. The said procedure is followed from 1975
onwards. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the
KPSC in following the said procedure. In so far as
moderation and scaling is concerned, though the KPSC has
committed the mistake of taking the annulled marks, on the
same being pointed out, now they have rectified the mistake
and have prepared the revised merit list which is also web
- 231 -
hosted. In so far as not undertaking the said exercise in
respect of the answer scripts which are more than 10% is
concerned, as they were called upon to redo the exercise only
in respect of 10% of the answer scripts, they were under no
obligation to undertake the said exercise in respect of those
answer scripts which were above 10% and, therefore, no
fault could be fault with.
83. Sri S.Vijaya Shankar, the learned senior
counsel, appearing for the candidates who are affected by
the revised merit list contends that, once a list of candidates
suitable for appointment is prepared in accordance with Rule
11 of the Rules, the KPSC becomes functus officio. They
have no power to revise the said merit list and, therefore, the
revised merit list cannot be enforced and is liable to be set-
aside.
84. Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior counsel
appearing for successful candidates of the 1998 batch
submitted that by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court
- 232 -
in the case of Dr.M.S.Mudhol and another Vs.
S.D.Halegkar and others reported in (1993)3 SCC 591
that at this distance of time, the selections made more than
12 years back cannot be unsettled. He also submitted that
the very petitioners, who are prosecuting these writ petitions
are applicants before the KAT, where they are seeking very
same relief. He also contended that in the entire writ
petitions, no allegations are made against the successful
candidates that they have manipulated or practised fraud in
order to get selected. Therefore, it is submitted that at this
distance of time, the question of considering the public
interest litigation to annul the said appointment would not
arise.
85. Sri K.M.Prakash, the learned counsel appearing
for the successful candidates submitted that, the KPSC has
conducted the selection as per the Rules framed by the
Government. All persons who have merit are to be
considered as GM candidates and, therefore, considering the
candidates belonging to the reserved category as GM
- 233 -
candidates is in accordance with law and no fault could be
found with in it.
He also contended that the material on record clearly
demonstrates that this public interest litigation is filed
targeting a particular individual and a particular community
and, therefore, it ceases to be a public interest litigation. He
further submitted the dispute in question being purely a
service matter, as held by the Apex Court in several
judgments no public interest litigation is maintainable. In
support of his contention he relied on several judgments of
the Apex Court.
He contended that all these petitioners were the
candidates, their application before the tribunal challenging
the selection process is pending, that the questions involved
in this Writ Petition and the questions in that application are
one and the same, that they cannot be allowed to prosecute
parallel proceedings, that their conduct is not bonafide, that
they have not come to the Court with clean hands, that a
person who has surpassed material particulars, filed a
review petition and a curative petition, is not entitled to any
- 234 -
relief at the hands of this Court. Moreover, no allegations
are made against the successful candidates, they are not
party to any of the irregularities alleged. For no fault of
their’s they cannot be made to suffer. Therefore, he submits
seen from angle, the selection list cannot be quashed by this
Court.
Lastly he submitted, in the event this Court were to
uphold the revised merit list as held by the Apex Court in
several judgments, without disturbing candidates who are
working for the last 10 years or more, supernumerary posts
could be created for those persons whose name did not
figure in the earlier list.
In so far as the selection of Smt. Nirmala as Deputy
Superintendent of Excise is concerned, what is shown in the
register on the interview date as absent is wrong. She has
sworn to an affidavit where she has given her version and
she has also produced documents to substantiate her stand
and, therefore, he contends she was not absent, she
attended the interview and the marks allotted to her in such
interview is in accordance with law.
- 235 -
In so far as discrepancies pointed out in Table 20 in
the report submitted by the petitioners’ counsel is
concerned, he submits there is no tampering, and
manipulation. Thereafter, he referred to the 164 statement
recorded by the Magistrate and other members of the
committee, all of them are Constitutional authorities, barring
the fact that the Chairman is first among the equals, the
question of Chairman threatening the members and acting
against their wishes would not arise, statements given before
the Magistrate are yet to be proved. In fact, the complaint
filed against the other members of the Commission are
quashed by this Court. In those circumstances, the
correction of the marks is genuine and it cannot be found
fault with.
86. Sri Aditya Sondhi, the learned Additional
Advocate General and Sri Devdas, the learned Additional
Government Advocate, reiterated what they have said in the
statement of objections.
- 236 -
87. Sri. S.V. Narasimhan, learned counsel
submitted that the petitioners in the writ petitions, in
categorical terms have stated that they are the aspirants for
the posts, which are filled up by the KPSC and therefore, the
writ petition is for vindicating their personal rights and not a
public interest litigation. He further submitted that it is
settled law that no public interest litigation lies in respect of
service matters. In support of his contention, he relies on
the judgments of the Apex Court in case of Ashok Kumar
Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2004)3 SCC
349, in case of Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad
Mahto and others reported in (2010)9 SCC 655 and in
case of State of Punjab Vs. Salil Sabhlok and others
reported in (2013)5 SCC 1.
He further submitted that though the examinations
are conducted in the years 1998 and 1999, the appointment
orders were issued only in the year 2006 whereas the writ
petition is filed in the year 2012 i.e., 6 years after the
appointment. Therefore, he relies on the judgment in case of
Printers (Mysore) Ltd., Vs. M.A.Rasheed and others
- 237 -
reported in (2004)4 SCC 460. He contended that the writ
petition filed six years after the appointment orders is liable
to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches on the
part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. The said
delay and latches equally applies to public interest litigation.
The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji
Jadeja and another Vs/ State of Gujarat reported in AIR
1995 SC 2390(1) at Paragraph 11 and the case of Dipak
Babaria and another Vs/ State of Gujarat and others
reported in (2014)3 SCC 502 paragraphs 69 and 72, where
it has been held that the direction by the State Government
to another instrumentality of the State is contrary to law and
cannot be approved and any orders passed on such dictation
is invalid. He also relied on the objections to the Fact
Finding Committee’s Report, which is taken on record.
The learned counsel relying on paragraph 52 in Sanjay
Singh’s case submitted that if the Court comes to the
conclusion that if there were irregularities in the selection,
still any rules or guidelines to be issued by this Court should
- 238 -
be made prospective so that the successful candidates, who
have been working for more than 10 years is not disturbed.
He further submits that the Rajasthan High Court as well as
the High court of Uttar Pradesh have followed the High Court
of Uttaranchal in this regard.
88. Sri.Vedachala, learned counsel appearing for
Roopashree and Sri.Subramanya, learned counsel appearing
for Uma. K., pointed out that the respective respondents are
both benefited and suffered in the process of the so-called
third valuation, which is not taken into account.
89. Sri Krishna Dixit, the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.430 by name Devaraja
contended that, in the committee report it is suggested that
the member Smt. Ilian Xavier altered the marks 70 to 150 on
the instructions of the Chairman Dr.Krishna. In the 164
statement recorded before the Magistrate there is no
whisper. On the contrary all the other members have
awarded 150 marks. He is a highly qualified candidate and
- 239 -
when the other members have awarded 150 marks, when by
alteration this member has also made it 150, no fault could
be found with the selection.
90. Sri Spoorthi Hegde, the learned counsel
appearing for candidates who belong to 3A but are selected
in the GM category states their selection is based on purely
merit. There is no allegation against them in the CID report
and they are not involved in any manipulation and,
therefore, their selection cannot be found fault with.
91. Sri Narayana Bhat, the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4-Idayathulla submits that, his
client was a candidate in 1999 selection. He was not
selected. Therefore, he filed an application before the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal complaining of non-
selection. Application was allowed directing the Government
to create a supernumery post. That order was challenged
before this Court. By an interim order a direction was given
to create a supernumery post and accordingly he was
appointed. Subsequently, the Writ Petition came to be
- 240 -
dismissed. His appointment is final. He stands outside the
purview of this litigation. Under no circumstances his
appointment could be touched.
92. In so far as Ram Prasad, respondent No. 301 is
concerned, his name is taken out of the list on the basis of
the marks after moderation. He submits he has now
secured the records from the KPSC and the moderation is
correct and if the correct marks are taken, he would not be
out of the list. The same reasoning applies to respondent
No.306-Siddalingaswamy who happens to be a 3B category
and also for respondent No. 322-Mehaboobi, respondent No.
354 – Arun Kumar Sangali and respondent No. 294 –Gopal.
Synopsis and judgments are also placed on record. Further
he submits that all his candidates are meritorious,
deserving, honest people. If at all these mistakes,
manipulations have happened in case of those candidates
who have taken Kannada and History as the optional
subjects.
- 241 -
93. Vishwanath Hiremath-respondent No. 737 had
applied for a post in 2004 selection. He was not selected.
He challenged the same before the Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal on the ground that no reservation is earmarked for
Physically Handicapped persons. Accepting his case the
Government was directed to create a supernumary post. He
was appointed. The said order was challenged by the
Government and KPSC. They were unsuccessful. His
appointment has become final. He also falls outside the
proceedings of this Court.
94. Sri Srikanth, the learned counsel appearing for
some of the successful candidates, relying on the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of JOGINDER PAL AND
OTHERS vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [(2014) 6
SCC 644 urged that the candidates who are meritorious are
to be segregated from the tainted candidates and action
should be taken only against tainted candidates. He also
relied on the judgment in the case of ASHOK KUMAR
PANDEY vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL [(2004) 3 SCC 349]
to contend that service litigation is not public interest
- 242 -
litigation but a private interest litigation and it should be
thrown out at the initial stage itself. Relying on the
judgment in the case of M.V.THIMMAIAH AND OTHERS vs
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS
[(2008) 2 SCC 119] he submitted that the malafides alleged
are not established. Therefore, no action can be taken on
that basis. He also submitted that he would file synopsis
with judgments.
1999 Batch: 95. Sri D.R. Ravi Shankar, the learned counsel
appearing for some of the petitioners contended that when
the selection process was under challenge before the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, the KPSC has destroyed
the entire answer scripts, which clearly shows the malafide
intention on their part. He contended that without
preparation of model answer scripts, the valuation is done
which has resulted in total arbitrariness in the process of
valuation. The system of introducing second and third
valuation is arbitrary. For aforesaid reasons he submits that
the selection of 1999 Batch is liable to be quashed.
- 243 -
96. Per contra, Sri.P.S.Rajagopal, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the KPSC submitted that model
answer scripts were prepared. It is only on that basis
evaluation of answer scripts have taken place. After expiry
of the period stipulated, the answer scripts have been
destroyed. No motive could be attributed on that score. All
other allegations made by the petitioners pointing out the
irregularities in the 1999 batch of selection, is without any
substance and not supported by any material on record.
Therefore, he submits that there is no merit in any of those
allegations.
97. Sri.Santhosh Nagarale, learned counsel
appearing for few successful candidates in the year 1999
selection, submitted that in the judgments on which reliance
was placed by the petitioners, adverse inference were drawn
for destruction of answer scripts. But in the instant case
answer scripts were destroyed in accordance with law.
Therefore, the judgment has no application to the facts of
this case.
- 244 -
He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Girjesh Shrivastava and others Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2010)10 SCC
707 to buttress his argument that no public interest
litigation is maintainable in service matters and relied on
several judgments, which find a place in the said judgment.
He pointed out that in the CID report, nothing is said
about the 1999 selection and therefore, 1999 selection,
under no circumstances should be interfered with.
98. In the light of the aforesaid material on record
and in the light of the arguments canvassed, the points that
arise for our consideration in these petitions are as under :-
(1) Whether the process of preparation of the
eligibility list of candidates who are to be
admitted for written examination and the list of
candidates who are called for the personality
test, is in accordance with Rule 4 read with
Schedule II and in particular Note ‘c’ of Clause
‘A’ and clause (c) of the Rules?
(2) Whether the revised list prepared by the KPSC is
in terms of the order passed by this Court in
- 245 -
W.P.Nos. 12548-589/2002 and to be given
effect?
(3) Whether the KPSC was justified in not taking into
consideration 91 answer scripts which were
subjected to third valuation on the
ground that they were in excess of 10% directed
by the order of the High Court?
(4) Whether the selection of the 1999 batch of
Gazetted Probationers is liable to be set aside for
destruction of answer scripts?
(5) Whether the Writ Petition is not maintainable as
it is not a Public Interest Litigation as contended
by the respondents?
(6) Whether grievances pointed out with regard
to individual candidates made out by both the
petitioners and respondents can be gone into in
these proceedings?
(7) What are the directions to be issued to the
KPSC in the background of this case to prevent
future repetition of the same mistakes?
(8) What order?
- 246 -
POINT NO.1 - RATIO VIOLATION
99. Sri M.B.Naragund, learned Senior Counsel, appearing
for the petitioners contended that in the selection process
during the years 1998, 1999 and 2004 there was a gross
violation of ratio prescribed for general merit candidates as
well as the reserved candidates. Undisputedly, a multi stage
examinations are conducted. There are three stages firstly,
preliminary examination to determine eligibility to take
written examination, written examination and thereafter a
personality test. Therefore, a distinction is to be made in a
multi stage selection between selection and eligibility criteria
for participating in the selection process. The Government
order on which reliance is placed is only for selection. When
a person moves in to the arena of written examination, his
eligibility criteria cannot be construed as selection for the
written examination. Again, when he is to be called for
personality test, the eligibility criteria is to be satisfied and
that does not constitute selection.
- 247 -
Admittedly, for all the three years, the candidates from
reserved list, find a place in the unreserved list, at the stage
of written examination and personality test, which is illegal.
This wrong inclusion has taken away the right of general
merit candidates to be considered for selection under the
general merit candidate. It violates Article 14, 16, 16(4) of the
Constitution as held by the Apex Court Article 14, 16, 164
and 164A have to be harmonized and one cannot eat into
seats which are earmarked for these candidates and
therefore he submits that the entire selection is vitiated and
it has to be re-done keeping in mind the aforesaid principles.
Pointing out the injustice done, he submits that in the
1998 selection out of 383 posts for which applications were
called for, 187 posts reserved for general merit. Therefore,
according to the Rules, after the preparation of merit list of
the written examination, the candidates falling in the
category of GM should have been called for viva voce in the
ratio of 1:5 i.e., 935 candidates should have been called for.
However, only 521 candidates were called for. Thus, 414
persons who had the requisite merit in the written
- 248 -
examination were deprived of the benefit of attending the
personality test because of wrong migration of reserved
candidates into general merit candidate.
He pointed out that insofar as persons belonging to III
A category is concerned, 11 posts were reserved in the ratio
of 1:5, 55 persons ought to have been called whereas 169
persons were called for the interview, thus the benefit of
attending interview is conferred on 114 persons who did not
have the requisite merit to attend the personality test Similar
is the case in respect of other candidates also. In that
process, for the 187 posts meant for General Merit category,
even persons belonging to other category have been
appointed on the basis of the marks secured in the
personality test though they did not have requisite merit at
the earlier stage and therefore it was illegal and the selection
is vitiated.
100. Sri P.S.Rajagopal, the learned senior counsel
appearing for KPSC, submitted that, in a multi stage
examination process each stage is independent and merit
- 249 -
has to be considered at each stage. From the year 1975
onwards not only the KPSC but all the Governmental
agencies have followed the procedure prescribed under
Schedule II in terms of the Government Order dated
9.7.1975 and Annexure-II deals with mode of selection.
There is no prohibition for adopting such procedure. He
further submitted that though in the general category for
187 posts, they have to call 935 candidates, 521 candidates
belonging to GM category have been called and 414
candidates belonging to the meritorious reserved candidates
category, who by virtue of their merit are eligible to be
considered as GM candidates, were called for the interview
and therefore, the contention that 414 persons belonging to
GM were denied the benefit of viva voce, is not correct.
Similarly, so far as other categories are concerned, in
calculating the number of candidates actually called, so far
as 413 candidates belonging to meritorious reserved category
candidates are calculated against each category and
therefore, the difference pointed out is without any
substance.
- 250 -
Therefore, he submits relying on several judgments of
the Apex Court as well as this Court, the question of this
Court finding fault with the said procedure which is well
established would not arise at this stage. He submits it is
always open to the Court if it feels a reformation is required,
that could be only for the future selections by issuing
appropriate direction to the Executive.
101. Sri. R. Devdas, Principal Government Advocate,
on behalf of Learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that Rule 8 of the Rules, 1997 provides for reservation for
SC/ST and other Backward Classes. It provides, there shall
be reservation of vacancies for candidates belonging to
SC/ST and other Backward Classes to the extent provided
for by the government by any general or special order, from
time to time. It is in pursuance of these Rules, these orders
are passed from time to time and followed by the
Government as well as the KPSC. This is in conformity with
Art.16(4) of the Constitution and also in conformity with
- 251 -
Section 4(1) of the Karnataka SC/ST & Other Backward
Classes (Reservation on appointments, etc) Act, 1990.
102. The learned Additional Advocate General Sri.
Aditya Sondhi, appearing for the Government submitted
that Sri.R.Devadas, was the member of the Committee
constituted by the Committee of this Court and he has
submitted his report and in addition to what is contained in
the report his submissions are also placed on record where
they did not dispute the facts set out in Tables. But they do
not agree with the inference drawn by the learned counsel
for the petitioner. He brought to our notice the judgments of
the Apex Court and contends that in all these cases, a
reserved category candidate whose name finds place in the
General Merit, if in an arrangement, was not able to secure
an higher post: and persons in the reserved category with
less merit is able to secure higher post, then law permits
moving of the reserved category candidate from the general
merit list to the reserved category, in which event, seats
which fell in the general merit have to be filled by the general
- 252 -
merit candidate and not by the reserved candidate, who went
out of the list because of migration. At any rate, the rule in
Indra Sawhney case that reservation should not exceed 50%
is to be maintained.
103. Sri K M Prakash, learned counsel appearing for
the meritorious candidates submit that the petitioners have
not pointed out what is the violation of any law committed by
the KPSC in the matter of selection. KPSC conducts
selection as per the Rules framed by the Government from
the inception or from time to time. Secondly, he contended,
the nomenclature GM excludes castes. All persons who have
merit are to be considered as GM candidates. There is no
law which provides that once a person is treated as a
reserved category, he should be treated as reserved category
throughout the selection process and therefore, there is no
substance in the contention of the petitioners.
104. Learned Senior counsel for petitioners Sri
M.B.Nargund in reply pointed out that the mode of selection
- 253 -
as per Annexure II on which reliance has been placed by
learned Sr. counsel for KPSC is to be followed at the time of
preparing the final list of selected candidates. It has no
application at the time of preparing the list of candidates
who are eligible to take the written examination and
candidates who are eligible to go to the personality test. They
are governed by clause (c) of the Scheme of Examination as
contained in Schedule II.
105. In the light of the aforesaid submission the
question for consideration is whether the procedure followed
by the KPSC is in accordance with the Rules and the
Government Order dated 03.05.1994 and 20.06.1995.
RELEVANT RULES :
106. In pursuance of the powers conferred on the
State under Section 8 of the Karnataka State Civil Services
Act, 1978, the Government of Karnataka has framed the
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers
(Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 (for
- 254 -
short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules”). Section 4 of the
Rules provide for holding of competitive examination. It
reads as under : -
“4.Holding of Competitive
Examinations: (1) (a) A combined Competitive
examination for recruitment to one or more of the
services or groups of posts mentioned in
Schedule-I shall be held every year, subject to
availability of vacancies, in the manner set out in
Schedule-II.
(b) Government may, by order, amend
Schedule-II for making any addition,
alteration or deletion of any subject or
syllabus of a subject.
(2) The Commission shall invite applications
in the prescribed form for the competitive
examination from the intending eligible
candidates.
(3) The candidates who apply for the
competitive examinations shall clearly
indicate in their application forms the
services or posts for which they wish to be
considered for appointment in the order of
preference. They shall not be considered for
- 255 -
such of the service or posts which are not
preferred by them.”
107. Rule 8 provides for reservation of Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes. It
reads as under:-
“8. Reservation for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes: There shall be reservation of vacancies
for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes to
the extent provided for by the Government by any
general or Special order from time to time.”
108. Rule 9 provides for conduct of competitive
examination. It reads as under : -
“9. Conduct of Competitive
Examinations: The Commission shall, subject to
the provisions of these rules, make necessary
arrangements relating to the conduct of
Competitive Examination to be held by it in
pursuance of rule 4 of these rules. The
Commission shall openly advertise the vacancies
in the Karnataka Gazette and in one or more of
News Papers in regional language having wide
- 256 -
circulation in the State specifying the condition of
eligibility, the nature of competition, the
provisional number of vacancies to be filled up
and the reservations available in favour of
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes and others.”
109. Rule 11 provides for list of candidates suitable
for appointment. It reads as under : -
“11. List of candidates suitable for
appointment: (1) Subject to the provisions of
sub-rule (3) of rule 4 and rule 8, and the number
of posts advertise for each of the services in
Group-‘A’ and Group- ‘B’ the Commission shall
prepare separate list of names of the candidates
equal to the available number of vacancies
considered suitable for appointment for each of
the said services in Group-‘A’ and Group ‘B’
arranged in the order of merit determined on the
basis of total marks secured in the main
examination comprising written examination and
personality test:
Provided that the name of a candidate shall
not be included in more than one such list.
- 257 -
2) The list prepared under sub-rule (1) shall
be published by the Commission in the Official
Gazette and the copies thereof shall be forwarded
to: -
(i) the Government together with the marks
secured by each of the candidates in the
written examination and personality test;
and
(ii) each candidate whose name is included in
such list.
3) Candidates whose names are included
in the list prepared in accordance with the
provisions of sub-rule (1) shall be considered for
appointment to the vacancies notified in each of
the services and groups of posts in the order in
which their names appear in the list:
Provided that, no candidate shall be
appointed unless the Government is satisfied
after such enquiry and verification as may be
considered necessary that the candidate is
suitable for such appointment.”
110. As could be seen from Rule 4, the competitive
examinations have to be conducted in the manner set out in
- 258 -
Schedule II. Schedule II speaks about scheme of
examination. Clause (1) and (2) reads as under : -
SCHEDULE – II
SECTION – I SCHEME OF EXAMINATION
The competitive examination shall comprise
of two stages:-
(1) Preliminary Examination (Objective type)
for the selection of candidates for the main
examination and
(2) Main Examination (written examination
and Personality Test) for selection for candidates
for various services and posts.
111. Clause (A) deals with preliminary examination.
It reads as under :-
“(A) Preliminary Examination : The
Preliminary Examination shall consist of two
papers of objective type (multiple choice).
(i) each paper carrying 100 Questions with
each question carrying two marks.
(ii) each paper shall be of a maximum of 200
marks and a duration of two hours (Total
- 259 -
for two papers 400 Marks) in the following
description, namely:-
Sl. No.
Subject Area No. of
Questions Marks
PAPER – I
1 General Studies related to National and International importance
40 80
2 Humanities 60 120
Total 100 200
PAPER – II
1 General studies related to State importance
40 80
2 General Science & Tech, Environment & Ecology
30 60
3 General Mental Ability 30 60
Total 100 200
Note: - a. The question paper shall be set both in
Kannada and English.
b. The standard of General Mental Ability
questions of preliminary examination
(aptitude test) shall be that of X / SSLC
level and the remaining papers are that of
Degree Level.
c. The number of candidates to be admitted to
the main examination shall be 20 times the
vacancies notified for recruitment “in the
order of merit” on the basis of the
performance in the preliminary
- 260 -
examination, subject to accommodating the
“same ratio” in adequate number of
candidates belonging to the categories of
Scheduled Castes , Scheduled Tribes, each
of the other Backward Classes and
others.”
112. Clause (B) deals with main examination. It
reads as under:
“B. Main Examination: The Main
Examination shall consist of written examination
and personality test.
Written Examination:
Paper I Kannada 150 marks Paper II English 150 marks Papers III & IV General Studies 300 marks
for each paper Papers V, VI, Two Subject to VIII and VIII be selected from the list of
optional subjects. 300 marks for Each subject will each paper.
Have two papers.
Total marks for Written examination 2100
- 261 -
Note: 1. The marks obtained in
compulsory papers i.e., in Kannada and in
English shall be of qualifying nature. For
qualifying in these papers, a minimum of 30% in
each paper and 35% aggregate is prescribed. The
marks obtained in these two papers shall not be
considered for determining the merit for selection.
Candidates who do not secure the prescribed
marks in the qualifying papers, namely, Kannada
and English, shall not be eligible for personality
test and selection.
2. The examination shall be of conventional
type.
3. The question papers shall be set both in
Kannada and in English. A candidate may
answer a paper either entirely in Kannada
or in English.
4. The standard of the main examination
except Paper I Kannada and Paper II
English shall be that of Degree level. The
standard of Paper I Kannada and Paper II
English shall be that of First Language
Kannada and First Language English
respectively at SSLC level.”
- 262 -
113. Clause (C) personality test reads as under :-
“C. Personality Test: The Commission
shall call for a personality test, as far as may be,
Five times the number of candidates as there are
vacancies in the services in Group-A and Group-
B respectively, of Schedule-I in the order of merit
on the basis of the results of the Main
Examination, subject to calling candidates
belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and other Backward Classes in the same ratio to
the extent vacancies are reserved for them.
Personality Test shall carry a maximum of 200
marks. The object of the Personality test is to
assess the personal suitability of the candidate
for the service or services for which he is a
candidate. The qualities to be judged at the time
of personality test are mental alertness, critical
powers of assimilation, clear and logical
exposition, and balance of judgment, variety and
depth of interest, ability for social cohesion,
leadership and intellectual depth of the
candidate”.
(Underlining by us)
- 263 -
114. Schedule II of the Rules provides for the scheme
of examination. As is clear from Section I of Schedule II, the
competitive examination shall comprise of two stages. First,
preliminary examination (for the objective type). Second,
main examination (written examination and personality test).
These two examinations have to be conducted in stages.
There are five stages in all.
115. First Stage: All the candidates who possess the
academic qualification prescribed under Rule 7 are eligible to
take the preliminary examination. The preliminary
examination consists of two papers of objective type (multiple
choice). Each paper carries 100 questions with each
question carrying 2 marks and each paper shall be a
maximum of 200 marks and of duration of two hours. The
description of the subject area, the number of questions and
marks prescribed in Paper I and Paper II are as stipulated in
Schedule II. The question paper shall be set both in
Kannada and English. There is no cut off marks prescribed
for pass in the preliminary examination. After the
- 264 -
preliminary examination, all the persons who had taken the
examinations are included in the list on the basis of the
merit. The names of the candidates are arranged in the said
list purely on the basis of merit, i.e., marks secured in the
preliminary examination and not on the basis of any caste
consideration. At this stage the caste of the candidate is of
no relevance and the question of applying the reservation
policy under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India would
not arise.
116. For example, if 10,000 candidates take the
preliminary examination, after examination a list showing
their performance is prepared on the basis of merit/marks
secured in the preliminary examination. In other words, the
names of all the candidates who wrote the preliminary
examination find a place in the list showing the marks
obtained by them. The names are arranged in the order of
merit. As there is no cut off or minimum marks for a pass in
the examination is prescribed, the list should show the
names of all the persons who took the preliminary
- 265 -
examination showing the marks secured by them. However,
the names in the list shall be arranged in the order of merit.
117. Second stage: Taking the preliminary
examination is a condition precedent for being eligible to
take the written examination. However, all the persons who
had taken the preliminary examination are not entitled to
take the written examination. Clause (C) of Section I
provides that the number of candidates to be admitted to the
main examination shall be 20 times the vacancies notified
for recruitment. In other words, as against each vacancy 20
candidates whose name finds a place in the list of candidates
who had taken the preliminary examination are admitted to
the written examination. Those 20 candidates against each
vacancy are selected in the order of merit on the basis of the
performance in the preliminary examination. Therefore, even
to take the written examination, merit is the sole criteria.
However, it is subject to one condition, i.e., adequate
number of candidates belonging to the categories of
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and each of the other
- 266 -
Backward Classes and others have to be accommodated in
the same ratio. In other words, here a distinction is made
between candidates whose merit alone is taken into
consideration and candidates whose caste is taken into
consideration. The number of candidates to be admitted to
the main examination shall be candidates who are
permitted/admitted to take the examination purely on the
basis of merit and equal number of candidates belonging to
the reserved categories. Therefore, necessarily two lists have
to be prepared at this stage. One list showing the names of
the candidates belonging to the unreserved category and
another list showing equal number of candidates belonging
to reserved category.
118. For example, if recruitment is conducted to fill
100 (Group A and B) posts, 20 times, the 100 would be
2000. Therefore, out of 10,000 candidates whose name finds
a palce in the performance list of preliminary examination,
only 2000 persons are to be admitted to the main
examination. Out of the 2000 students 1000 students are to
- 267 -
be admitted from unreserved category, 1000 candidates
should belong to the reserved category. In other words,
equal number of reserved category and unreserved category
should take the written examination. If in the list of
performance of the preliminary examination, Sl. No. 1 to
2000, if there are 1500 candidates belonging to the
unreserved category and 500 candidates belong to the
reserved category, only 1000 out of 1500 candidates
belonging to the unreserved category in the order of merit
have to be admitted. It means, 500 candidates, who are less
meritorious within 2000 list will not be eligible to take two
written examination. As only 500 reserved candidates are
found among the first 2000 candidates, remaining 500
candidates have to be selected from the list below 2000, in
the order of merit, to enable 1000 candidates belonging to
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other Backward
Classes and others to take the written examination. This is
what is meant by the expression “subject to accommodating
“same ratio” in adequate number of candidates belong to the
categories SC, ST; each of the other backward classes and
- 268 -
others”. Therefore, the ratio of 50:50 is to be maintained at
the time of writing the written examination. If on the other
hand, among the first 1000 candidates out of 2000
candidates, 800 candidates belong to the unreserved
category and 200 belong to the reserved category, 200
candidates belonging to the unreserved category in the order
of merit from the candidates below the 2000 in the list is to
be selected and 800 candidates belonging to the reserved
category from the candidates below the 2000 in the list are
to be selected. If the procedure now followed is applied only
800 candidates from unreserved category would be eligible
and 1200 candidates from reserved category would be
eligible. Thus, the ratio rule of 50:50 is breached. The
resultant position would be 200 meritorious candidates from
the unreserved category would be denied the opportunity to
write the examination. It is contrary to express provision
contained in the Rules and violates Article 14 and 16(1) of
the Constitution of India. Though caste/class plays a
dominant role at this stage in selecting the candidates to
write the written examination, the question of meritorious
- 269 -
reserved candidate being considered in the place of a general
merit candidate would not arise, at this stage. There is no
migration of a meritorious reserved candidate to the
unreserved category, contemplated at this stage. On the
contrary, the rule specifically states the “same ratio” is to be
maintained between reserved and unreserved category of
candidates. Therefore, at this stage two lists are to be
prepared. First list containing only 1000, unreserved
category candidates and second list containing only 1000
reserved category candidates.
119. Third Stage: This is the conduct of the main
examination. It shall consist of written examination and
personality test. Clause (B) of Section I of Schedule II speaks
about the written examination, the subjects and the marks
prescribed and the number of papers each candidate has to
take while writing the written examination. Note 1 makes it
clear that the marks obtained in compulsory papers, i..e, in
Kannada and in English shall be of qualifying nature. For
qualifying in these papers, a minimum of 30% on each paper
- 270 -
and 35% aggregate is prescribed. However, the marks
obtained in these two papers shall not be considered for
determining the merit for selection. Candidates who had not
secured the prescribed marks in qualifying papers, namely
Kannada and English, shall not be eligible for personality
test and selection.
120. Illustration: If 2000 persons as aforesaid,
belonging to reserved and unreserved category in the same
ratio, write the examination, after such examination, a list
showing the result of the main examination is to be
prepared. In this list also all the 2000 persons who took the
written examination name finds a place. No cut off marks or
minimum marks is prescribed in the Rules for passing in the
examination. However, the list not only shows the marks
secured by each candidate but also should disclose the
category to which the said candidate belongs. All the
persons whose names find a place in the list showing the
results of the main examination are not eligible to be called
for the personality test. The Rules provides that the
- 271 -
Commission shall call for a personality test, as far as may
be, five times the number of candidates as there are
vacancies in the services in Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’
respectively, of Schedule I. i.e., when there are 100
vacancies to be filled up, the number of persons who should
be called for the personality test is only 500. In other words,
among the 2000 candidates whose names find a place in the
list showing the results of the main examination, only 500
persons have to be called for the personality test. The basis
for the candidates being called is again in the order of merit
on the basis of the results in the main examination. The
same is again subject to the condition that candidates
belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
Backward Classes have to be called for the personality test
in the same ratio to the extent vacancies are reserved for
them. Therefore, even at the time of calling the candidates
for personality test, the ratio has to be maintained. In other
words, the number of candidates to be called for the
personality test belonging to the unreserved category and the
reserved category should be in the same ratio. Therefore,
- 272 -
again two lists, one of reserved candidates and the other of
un-reserved candidates in the same ratio has to be prepared.
Only those candidates are to be called for the personality
test.
121. For 100 posts, if 500 candidates have to be
called for the interview, among the 500, 250 should be from
the unreserved category and 250 from the reserved category.
The basis for inviting these 250 candidates in each category
is again in the order of merit. As in the list showing the
results of the main examination not only the marks secured
by each candidate but also the category to which they belong
is clearly mentioned, 250 candidates belonging to the
unreserved category in the order of merit should be called to
the personality test. Similarly, 250 candidates belonging to
the reserved category in the order of merit should be called
for the personality test. At this stage also the question of
meritorious reserved candidate being called to the
personality test as a unreserved candidate would not arise.
Therefore again two lists, first list showing 250 names of the
- 273 -
unreserved category and second list showing 250 names of
the reserved category to be prepared.
122. Fourth Stage: The personality test shall carry a
maximum of 200 marks. The object of the personality test is
to assess the personal suitability of the candidate for the
service or services for which he is a candidate. The qualities
to be judged at the time of personality test are mental
alertness, critical powers of assimilation, clear and logical
exposition, balance of judgment, variety and depth of
interest, ability for social cohesion, leadership and
intellectual depth of the candidate. After such personality
test, mark is awarded to each of the candidates who appear
for the personality test. As the maximum marks prescribed
for personality test is 200, the examiners have to award such
marks the candidate is entitled to on their observation. This
is the procedure prescribed under Rule 4 of the Rules.
123. The candidates whose names find a place in the
two lists prepared after the written examination in the order
- 274 -
of merit in the ratio of 1:5 are eligible to be called for the
personality test. In the personality test each candidate is
awarded marks based on their performance by the
examiners. Therefore, after the completion of the personality
test, again two lists showing the number of marks secured
by each candidate in the personality test are to be prepared,
i.e, first list showing the marks secured by each candidate
among the unreserved candidate and second list showing the
marks secured by each candidate among the reserved
candidate.
124. Therefore, there will be two lists in each category
one list showing the marks secured in the written
examination and another list showing the marks secured in
personality test.
125. FIFTH STAGE: Rule 11 of the Rules provides
for preparation of list of candidates suitable for appointment.
It provides that, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of
Rule 4 and Rule 8, and the number of posts advertised for
- 275 -
each of the services in Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’, the
Commission shall prepare separate lists of names of the
candidates equal to the available number of vacancies
considered suitable for appointment for each of the said
services in Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ arrange in the order of
merit determined on the basis of total marks secured in the
main examination comprising written examination and
personality test, provided that the name of a candidate shall
not be included in more than one such list. Therefore, it
provides for preparation of consolidated list of names of the
candidates equal to the available number of vacancies in the
order of merit determined on the basis of total marks
secured in the main examination comprising written
examination and the personality test. In other words, the
marks secured by the candidate in the written examination
and the personality test is to be totaled. Thereafter, a merit
list is to be prepared.
126. Rule 8 of the Rules provide that, there shall be
reservation of vacancies for candidates belonging to
- 276 -
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes to the extent provided for by the Government by any
general or special order from time to time. The preparation
of list of candidates suitable for appointment is subject to
Rule 8. The Government of Karnataka by an order dated
3.5.1994 has provided how the reservation of appointments
in direct recruitment to the State Civil Services under Article
16 (4) of the Constitution of India is to be made. The said
Order provides for mode of selection. Para 5 of the said
order prescribes that, the order of selection to be followed for
the proper implementation of the reservation provided in this
Order, is given in Annexure-2. This shall be followed by the
Public Service Commission and all other selecting
authorities. Annexure-2 to the said Government Order
dealing with mode of selection reads as under : -
“GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.DPAR 2 SBC 94, BANGALORE DATED: 3RD MAY, 1994
ANNEXURE-2
MODE OF SELECTION
a) The concerned Selection Authority shall
first prepare consolidated list of all eligible
- 277 -
applicants irrespective of their caste, tribe,
class and arrange them in the order of
merit (hereinafter called the First List).
b) The Selecting Authority shall then
prepare from out of the First List a second
list (hereinafter called the Second List)
containing the names of applicants equal to
the number of posts to be filled up on the
basis of general merit (i.e., the number of
posts other than those reserved in favour of
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
other Backward Classes) arranging them in
the order of merit commencing with the first
name in the First List.
c) The Selecting Authority will then
prepare from out of the First List, excluding
the portion forming the Second List, a Third
List (herein after called the Third List)
containing the names of applicants
belonging to the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and other groups of
Backward Classes equal to the number of
vacancies reserved for each reserved
category in the order of merit determined in
the First List.
- 278 -
d) The Selecting Authority will then
prepare a final list (which may called the
Main List) of selected candidates for
appointment to the category of posts for
which selection is made, by arranging the
names of candidates included in the
Second List and the Third List in the order
of merit.
e) Where the ‘Additional List’ has to be
prepared in accordance with rules of
recruitment, the Selecting Authority shall
prepare the additional list by adopting the
method mentioned at (a) (b) (c) & (d) above,
from among the names excluding the
names which are included in the Main List,
from the first list.”
127. Therefore, it is clear that, first a consolidated list
of eligible applicants irrespective of their caste, tribe, class,
is to be prepared and arranged in the order of merit which is
called the first list.
128. The word used is, “consolidated list”. Till such
stage is reached, necessarily, there should be more than one
- 279 -
list. One list of meritorious unreserved candidates and one
list of meritorious reserved candidates. It is to maintain the
ratio of 50:50 stipulated under the Rules, at the time of
admitting the students to take the written examination and
calling for Personality Test, two separate merit lists are to be
maintained. It is at the stage of preparation of the list of
candidates suitable for appointment, the Rule 11 provides
for reservation of vacancies. At that stage, the Government
Order mandates that the Selection Authority shall first
prepare consolidated list of all eligible applicants irrespective
of caste, tribe, class and arrange them in the order of merit.
Till such time in the preparation of list, caste, tribe, class,
plays a dominant role, in order to give equal opportunity to
all of them. At the time of appointment, merit is the criteria.
This consolidated list is called the First list. In other words,
the first list contains the names of all the persons who are
called for personality test and the marks secured by them
both in the written examination and the personality test.
Their names are arranged in the order of merit. From out of
this list a second list containing the names of the
- 280 -
candidates equal to the number of posts to be filled up on
the basis of general merit, i.e., the number of posts other
than those reservation in favour of Scheduled Caste,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes arranging
them in the order of merit commencing with the first name
in the first list. It is here for the first time the word
“GENERAL MERIT” is used and explained. General merit
means the number of posts other than those reserved in
favour of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other
Backward Classes. According to the Government order
dated 31.01.1995 and 20.06.1995 the number of post
reserved for Scheduled caste, Scheduled tribe and other
Backward Classes is 50%. The remaining 50% posts are to
be filled up by the General Merit category. This reservation
is in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Indira Sawhney’s case. The relevant portion of the
Government Order dated 20.06.1995 reads as under:
“ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁt¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 31-1-1995 ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀ�zÀ°è
»AzÀĽzÀ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀ «ÄøÀ¯Áw ¥ÀæªÀiÁtªÀ£ÀÄß ±ÉÃPÀ�qÁ
“50PÉÌ”“50PÉÌ”“50PÉÌ”“50PÉÌ” ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è gÁdå ¹«¯ï ¸ÉêÉUÀ¼À�,
- 281 -
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀzÀ°è §gÀĪÀ ¸ÉêÉUÀ¼À CxÀªÁ ºÀÅzÉÝUÀ�¼À
£ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ°è ¨sÁgÀvÀ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀzÀ 16(4)£Éà C£ÀÄZÉá�ÃzÀzÀ
¥ÀæPÁgÀ C¼ÀªÀr¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ gÉÆ�øÀÖgï §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁVzÉ.”
129. After the preparation of the second list then
excluding the portion forming the second list, a third list
has to be prepared from out of the first list containing the
names of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste,
Scheduled Tribe and Other Groups of Backward Classes
equal to the number of vacancies reserved for each reserved
category in the order of merit determined in the first list.
After this exercise, then a final list which is called the main
list of selected candidates for appointment to the category of
posts for which the selection is made by arranging the
names of candidates included in the second list and the
third list in the order of merit. While preparing this list, the
reservation policy of the State under Article 16(4) of the
Constitution is to be given effect to. It is at this stage, a
meritorious unreserved category could be considered as a
General Merit category because of his merit.
- 282 -
130. This is the procedure contemplated by the Rules
for holding of competitive examinations, conduct of
competitive examinations and the manner in which adequate
number of candidates belonging to the categories of
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, each of the Other
Backward Classes and Others is to be accommodated in the
same ratio as that of candidates belonging to the unreserved
category. Now, the question is whether KPSC has followed
this procedure in conducting these examinations and in
preparing the list of suitable candidates.
PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE K.P.S.C.
131. The petitioners contend there is violation of ratio
rule 1:20 for main examination and 1:5 for personality test
resulting in serious discrimination to the candidates. The
petitioners have provided data in Table A12, B2 and C4 at
pages 31, 64 and 90 of the Report of the committee
constituted by the High Court. The respondents do not
dispute the figures mentioned in the Table. But, they
contend the conclusion of the Petitioner Members is
- 283 -
incorrect and there is no variation of ratio policy of either
1:20 in calling for main examination or 1:5 in calling for
personality test.
132. The KPSC meeting the case of the petitioners
has filed the counter affidavit in respect of the conclusions
contained in the report dated 31.01.2014 of the Fact Finding
Committee filed on 31.1.2014. The said affidavit was filed on
19.2.2014. The relevant portion reads as under : -
j) In re: Point No.10: It is alleged by the
Petitioner Members in Point No.10 that there is a
violation of ratio rule of 1:20 for main
examination (for short ‘Mains’) and 1:5 for
personality test (for short ‘PT’) resulting in serious
discrimination to candidates. In support of the
said conclusion, the Petitioner Members have
provided data in Table A12, Table B2 and Table
C4 at Pages 31, 64 and 90 of the report
respectively. The conclusion of the Petitioner
Members is incorrect and there is no violation of
ratio policy of either 1:20 in calling for mains or
1:5 in calling for PT. Consequently there is no
discrimination to candidates as concluded by the
Petitioner Members. The Karnataka Recruitment
- 284 -
of Gazetted Probationers (Appointed by
competitive examinations) Rules, 1997 (for short
‘GP Rules of 1997’) provides that the candidates
to be called for the mains shall be in the ratio of
1:20 to the number of posts notified and the
candidates to be called for PT shall be in the ratio
of 1:5 to the number of posts notified (presently
amended to 1:3). The said rules do not provide
as to the manner in which the said calculation of
1:20 and 1:5 has to be carried out vis-à-vis the
different categories to which reservation is
provided. The Commission in determining the
candidates eligible in the 1:20 or 1:5 ratio,
follows the procedure prescribed in Annexure-2 to
the Government Order dated 03-05-1994 and
Annexure-2 of the Government Order dated 20-
06-1995. As per the said Government Orders,
the selecting authority is to first prepare
consolidated list of all the eligible applicants
irrespective of their caste, tribe, class and
arrange them in the order of merit, which list is
referred to as the first list. Thereafter, the
selecting authority is to prepare the second list
from out of the first list containing the names of
the applicants equal to the number of posts to be
filled up on the basis of General Merit arranging
them in the order of merit commencing with the
- 285 -
first name in the first list. Thereafter selecting
authority has to prepare from out of the first list,
excluding portion forming the second list, a third
list containing the names of the applicants
belonging to the Schedule Castes, Schedule
Tribes and other backward classes equal to the
number of vacancies reserved for each category
in the order of merit determined in the first list.
The said procedure is followed in finalizing the
1:20 and 1:5 lists. However, in the second list
containing the candidates considered as General
Merit there could be reserved category
candidates, which number of reserved category
candidates is also computed by the Petitioner
Members in Table A12, Table B2 and Table C4 as
against the respective Category, thereby arriving
at the distorted figures in order to highlight so
called category violation. On facts, in respect of
the three selections in question, there is no
category violation as concluded by the Petitioner
Members and the said conclusion is factually
incorrect in the light of the explanation above.
k) In re: Point No.11: The Petitioner
Members have concluded that the categories of
candidates have been arbitrarily changed and in
support thereof have been furnished data in
- 286 -
Table A18 and Table C10. it is submitted that
the said assertion and conclusion of the Petitioner
Members is factually incorrect. The list of
candidates to be called for PT in the ratio of 1:5 is
prepared in the manner as stated in Point No.10
above, which is as per the Government Orders
dated 03-05-1994 and 20-061995. in the said
process it is only logical and permissible that
candidates who have applied under a particular
category are selected or called for PT under
General Merit (for short ‘GM’). There is no
manipulation and the Petitioner Members have
used the words ‘category purposefully
manipulated’ and there is no material in support
of the said conclusion apart from indicating that
the said candidates in Table A18 and C20 had
claimed a specific reservation in both their
prelims and mains but were eligible for PT on the
basis of their merit under General Merit. In the
light of the explanation furnished in respect of
Point No.10, the said conclusion of the Petitioner
Members is factually incorrect.
133. From the said averments in the affidavit it is
clear that, according to the KPSC, the Rules of 1997 do
not provide as to the manner in which the ratio of 1:20
- 287 -
and 1:5 has to be carried out vis-à-vis the different
categories to which reservation is provided. The
Commission is determining the candidates eligible in 1:20
or 1:5 ratio following the procedure prescribed in
Annexure-2 to the Government Order dated 3.5.1994 and
Annexure-2 of the Government Order dated 20.6.1995
referred to supra. According to them, as per the said
Government Orders, the selecting authority has to first
prepare a consolidated list of all the eligible applicants
irrespective of their caste, tribe, class and arrange them in
the order of merit, which list is referred to as the first list.
Thereafter, the selecting authority has to prepare the
second list from out of the first list containing the names
of the applicants equal to the number of posts to be filled
up on the basis of General Merit arranging them in the
order of merit commencing with the first name in the first
list. Thereafter, the selecting authority has to prepare
from out of the first list, excluding portion forming the
second list, a third list containing the names of the
applicants belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
- 288 -
Tribes and Other Backward Classes equal to the number
of vacancies reserved for each category in the order of
merit determined in the first list. The said procedure is
followed in finalizing the 1:20 and 1:5 lists. According to
them, in the second list containing the candidates
considered as General Merit, there could be reserved
category candidates, which number of reserved category
candidates was also computed by the Petitioner Members
in Table A12, B2 and C4 as against the respective
Category, thereby arriving at the distorted figures in order
to highlight so called category violation. Therefore, they
contend the conclusion of the Petitioner Members is
factually incorrect.
134. From the aforesaid affidavit it is clear that the
KPSC has followed the procedure prescribed in the
Government Order dated 3.5.1994 and 20.6.1995 in
preparing the eligibility list of candidates who are eligible
to take the written examination. Similarly, by applying
the Government Order they have also prepared a list of
- 289 -
candidates who are eligible to take the personality test and
they have also followed the said Government Order at the
time of preparing the list of suitable candidates for
appointment. Is this procedure consistent with the Rules
and the Government Orders?
135. As could be seen from the scheme of
examination as provided in clause (A), the number of
candidates to be admitted to the main examination shall be
20 times the vacancies notified for recruitment in the order
of merit, on the basis of the performance in the preliminary
examination subject to accommodating the same ratio in
adequate number of candidates belonging to the categories
of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, each of the Other
Backward Classes and Others. The word used is “same
ratio”. i.e., the number of candidates to be admitted to the
main examination should be in the same ratio means the
number of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and each of the Backward Classes and
Others should be equal to that of the candidates who do not
- 290 -
belong to the said category. The word used is ‘adequate
number of candidates’. In other words, the number of
candidates belonging to the unreserved category who are
admitted to the written examination and number of
candidates belonging to the reserved category who should be
admitted to the reservation, should be the sames. Therefore,
two lists have to be prepared, one is the list showing
candidates belonging to the unreserved category and the
second list showing the reserved category. While preparing
these two lists there is no inter se merit to be taken note of.
These lists are list of candidates eligible to take the written
examination and not list of candidates suitable for
employment in the order of merit, which is called the First
List in the Government Order dated 03.05.1994. Similarly,
after the written examination also while calling the said
successful candidates to the personality test, the same
procedure is to be followed. i.e., prepare 2 lists, one list of
unreserved candidates and one list of reserved candidates in
order of merit. These two lists are list of candidates eligible
to be called for personality test. It is not a list of candidates
- 291 -
suitable for employment. It is only after completion of the
personality test, the marks secured by each candidate in the
written examination and personality test is totaled and a
consolidated list of eligible candidates irrespective of their
caste, tribe, class is arranged. The said Government Order
is to be followed only at the stage of preparation of list of
candidates suitable for appointment under Rule 11 as is
clear from the wordings of Rule 11. At the time of admitting
candidates for written examination and at the time of calling
the candidates for personality test, the number of candidates
to be admitted to the written examination and called for
personality test should be in the same ratio of persons
belonging to reserved category and unreserved category.
Clauses (A) and (C) specifically refers to the word ‘same
ratio’. Therefore, at that stage the question of any
meritorious unreserved category candidate being called
either for written examination or for the personality test as
an unreserved category would not arise. By wrongly
applying these Government Orders at this two stages,
substantial number of unreserved candidates who are
- 292 -
meritorious are denied the opportunity to take the written
examination as well as the personality test. The
understanding of KPSC that Rules of 1997 do not provide as
to the manner in which the ratio of 1:20 and 1:5 has to be
carried out is erroneous, in the light of the express provision
setting out how the list of candidates to be admitted to the
written examination and list of candidates to be called for
the personality test. Therefore, the error is apparent.
136. The number of candidates who are affected and
denied opportunity to take the personality test are set out as
here under :-
TABLE – A12 – 1998
Sl. No.
Category
Number of Posts allotted to each category
Number to be
actually called
Number actually called
Difference in the
number
Ratio Difference
1. GM &
GM/XMP 187 935 521 GM -414 BC 1:2.78
2. SC 64 320 393 +73 1:6.14
3. ST 19 95 114 +19 1:6
4. C – 1 22 110 142 +32 1:6.45
5. 2A 52 260 354 +94 1:6.80
6. 2B 17 85 114 +29 1:6.70
7. 3A 11 55 169 +114 1:15.36
8. 3B 11 55 116 +61 1:10.51
TOTAL 383 1915 1923
- 293 -
TABLE – B2 – 1999
Sl. No.
Category
Number of Posts allotted to each category
Number to be called in 1:5 Ratio
Number actually
called for Personality
Test
Difference in the
number
Ratio difference
1. GM &
GM/XMP 96 480 275 -205 1:2.86
2. SC & SC – XMP
32 160 201 +41 1:8.56
3. ST 09 45 54 +09 1:6
4. C – 1 07 35 57 +22 1:8.14
5. 2A & 2A – XMP
28 140 182 +42 1:6.50
6. 2B 08 40 51 +11 1:6.38
7. 3A 05 25 53 +28 1:10.60
8. 3B 06 30 68 +38 1:11.33
TOTAL 191 955 941 -14
TABLE – C4 – 2004
Sl. No.
Category
Number of Posts allotted to each category
Number to be called in 1:5 Ratio
Number actually called
Difference in the
number
Ratio difference
1. GM &
GM/XMP 75 375 93 -282 1:1.24
2. SC 25 125 168 +43 1:6.72
3. ST 07 35 45 +10 1:6.43
4. C – 1 08 40 55 +15 1:6.88
5. 2A 21 105 177 +72 1:8.42
6. 2B 05 25 36 +11 1:7.20
7. 3A 06 30 106 +76 1:17.66
8. 3B 06 30 79 +49 1:13.16
TOTAL 153 765 759 -6
- 294 -
137. The KPSC has placed on record the Reserved
Category candidates selected under the General Merit in
1998, 1999 and 2004 Gazetted Probationers Examination.
“Reserved Category candidates selected under
General Merit in 1998, 1999 and 2004 Gazetted
Probationers Examinations
1998 Gazetted Probationers Examinations
Sl.No. Category No. of Candidates
1. SC 1
2. ST Nil
3. Cat-1 Nil
4. 2A 3
5. 2B 1
6. 3A 28
7. 3B 2
Total 35/187
1999 Gazetted Probationers Examinations
Sl.No. Category No. of Candidates
1. SC Nil
2. ST Nil
3. Cat-1 2
4. 2A Nil
5. 2B 2
6. 3A 4
7. 3B 3
Total 11/96
- 295 -
2004 Gazetted Probationers Examinations
Sl.No. Category No. of Candidates
1. SC Nil
2. ST Nil
3. Cat-1 Nil
4. 2A 2
5. 2B 2
6. 3A 14
7. 3B 8
Total 26/74
138. Table A12 discloses the number of persons who
are called to the personality test in the 1998 batch. The
total number of posts for which recruitment took place was
383 posts. 50% of which is 187. Therefore 187 posts have
to be filled up by general merit candidates and the remaining
50% of the posts have to be filled up from reserved category
candidates. The ratio in which the candidates who have
passed the written examination is to be called for the
personal interview is 1:5. Therefore, as against the post of
187 ear marked for general merit category, 935 candidates
belonging to general merit category who had taken the
written examination had to be called for the personality test
in the order of merit. The Table discloses that only 521
candidates belonging to the General Merit category were
- 296 -
called for the interview. 414 candidates belonging to
unreserved category were denied the opportunity to
participate in the personality test. The said Table also
discloses that the various reserved category and the number
of posts allotted to each such category. It also discloses the
number to be actually called and number actually called. To
fill up 64 posts reserved for Schedule Caste, 320 persons in
the reserved category should have been called for the
personality test. However, 393 candidates were called for
the interview. Thus, 73 more candidates than what is
prescribed under the law were called for the interview.
Similarly, as against 19 posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe,
95 persons ought to have been called for the personality test.
Whereas, 114 persons were called, i.e., 19 persons were in
excess of the prescribed ratio. Similarly, 22 posts reserved
for C-1 category, 110 should have been called for the
personality test, whereas, 142 persons were called for. Thus,
32 candidates exceeded the prescribed ratio. Similarly, as
per the Table, for category 2A-94 persons, category 2B-29
persons, category 3A-114 persons and category 3B-61
- 297 -
candidates, more than the prescribed limit were called for.
Table B2 contains the particulars of the number of
candidates called for in the 1999 batch and Table C4 gives
the number of candidates called for 2004 batch.
139. In order to demonstrate the illegality and the
consequences flowing therefrom, let us take the case of
candidates belonging to 3A category in all the three years,
i.e., 1998, 1999 and 2004.
140. The aforesaid tables disclose that in the year
1998, as against 11 posts which were ear marked for
category 3A, 55 candidates should have been called for the
personality test. Whereas, three times the number of
candidates are called for the personality test, i.e., 169
candidates belonging to 3A category were called for the
personality test. In other words, 114 candidates belonging
to the unreserved category were denied the opportunity to
participate in the personality test.
- 298 -
141. In the 1999 batch, 5 posts were reserved for 3A
category. Therefore, 25 candidates belonging to 3A category
should have been called for the Personality Test. Whereas,
double the number of candidates namely 53 candidates were
called for the Personality Test, i.e, 28 candidates more than
what is prescribed were called for the Personality Test. In
other words, 28 candidates belonging to unreserved category
were denied the opportunity to participate in the personality
test because of this illegality.
142. Similarly, in the 2004 batch, 6 posts were ear
marked for 3A category and 30 candidates should have been
called for the personality test, where as, 106 candidates have
been called. Thus, 76 candidates belonging to general merit
has been denied the opportunity of being called for the
personality test.
143. The explanation offered for this discrepancy is,
by application of the Government Order even at that stage
meritorious candidates belonging to the reserved category
- 299 -
were called for the personality test. Therefore it patently
violates the Rule prescribed. The injustice which is done
because of this wrong procedure is apparent. If we look into
the Table furnished by the KPSC giving the particulars of the
reserved category candidates selected under the General
Merit in 1998, 1999 and 2004 Gazetted Probationers
Examinations, in 1998 batch, 28 persons belonging to 3A
category find a place in the general merit category in 1998
Batch, whereas, 14 persons find a place in the general merit
category who belong to 3A category in 2004 Batch. In fact,
35 out of 187 candidates reserved for general category has
been filled up by reserved category. 11 out of 96 candidates
in 1999 batch were filled up by reserved category and 26 out
of 74 persons belonging to reserved category are appointed
in the general merit category. Thus wrong application of the
Government Order has denied equal opportunity to the
meritorious candidates belonging to the unreserved category
thus violating Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
- 300 -
144. In the 1998 selection, in all 414 candidates
belonging to general merit and in the 1999 batch, 205
candidates belonging to general merit and in the year 2004,
282 candidates belonging to general merit were denied an
opportunity to participate in the personality test, thus
seriously affecting their fundamental right guaranteed under
the Constitution under Article 14 and 16(1) as well as the
right conferred on them under the Rules.
PRACTICE
145. Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the KPSC contended that from the year 1975
onwards, not only the KPSC but all the Governmental
agencies have followed the procedure prescribed under
Schedule II in terms of the Government Order dated
09.07.1975 and Annexure-2 deals with the mode of
selection. Relying on the several judgments of the Apex
Court, as well this Court, he submitted that the question of
this Court finding fault with the said procedure which is well
established would not arise at this stage. However, it is
- 301 -
always open to the Court if it feel a reformation in the
procedure followed by the KPSC is required, that could be
done only for future selection by issuing appropriate
direction to KPSC in this regard.
146. The learned Counsel for the petitioners
Sri Vikram Phadke submitted that when the procedure
followed is unconstitutional and offending Article 14 and
16(1) of the Constitution, the question of this Court declining
to interfere with the said procedure on the ground that it is
in force for long period would not be proper. As it is
unconstitutional, it requires to be set aside.
147. In support of his contention, the learned Senior
Counsel Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, appearing for KPSC, relied on
the following judgments:
148. The Apex Court in the case of
S.B.BHATTACHARJEE vs S.D.MAJUMDAR AND OTHERS
reported in 2007 (10) SCC 513 dealing with the weight to be
- 302 -
attached to the practice which is followed for a considerable
time held as under : -
“19. The Rules indisputably envisage that a
person having an overall grading of 'outstanding'
shall alone be considered vis-a-vis who do not
come within the purview of the gradation of
outstanding despite the fact that in their service
career they might have received overall grading of
'Very Good'.
27. It may be that in a given case, the court can
with a view to give effect to the intention of the
legislature, may read the statute in a manner
compatible therewith, and which would not be
reduced to a nullity by the draftsman's
unskilfulness or ignorance of law. But, however, it
is also necessary for us to bear in mind the
illustration given by the executive while
construing an executive direction and office
memorandum by way of executive construction
cannot be lost sight of. It is in that sense the
doctrine of cotemporanea expositio may have to
be taken recourse to in appropriate cases,
although the same may not be relevant for
construction of a model statute passed by a
legislature.
- 303 -
28. In G.P. Singh's 'Principles of Statutory
Interpretation, 10th Edn. at p. 319, it is stated :
"But a uniform and consistent departmental
practice arising out of construction placed upon an
ambiguous statute by the highest executive
officers at or near the time of its enactment and
continuing for a long period of time is an
admissible aid to the proper construction of the
statute by the Court and would not be
disregarded except for cogent reasons. The
controlling effect of this aid which is known as
'executive construction' would depend upon
various factors such as the length of time for
which it is followed, the nature of rights and
property affected by it, the injustice result from its
departure and the approval that it has received in
judicial decisions or in legislation.
Relying upon this principle, the Supreme Court in
Ajay Gandhi v. B. Singh having regard to the fact
that the President of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal had been from its inception in 1941
exercising the power of transfer of the members of
the Tribunal to the places where Benches of the
Tribunal were functioning, held construing
Sections 251(1) and 255(5) of the Income Tax Act
that the President under these provisions has the
- 304 -
requisite power of transfer and posting of its
members. The court observed : "For construction of
a statute, it is trite, the actual practice may be
taken into consideration."
Contemporary official statements throwing light
on the construction of a statute and statutory
instruments made under it have been used as
contemporanea expositio to interpret not only
ancient but even recent statute both in England
and India."
149. The Supreme Court in the case of DR. UMA
KANT Vs. DR. BHIKALAL JAIN AND OTHER reported in
(1992) 1 SCC 105 dealing with the procedure in vogue for
considerable time has held as under: -
“9. If we examine the matter from another angle, it
would be clear that according to the university
such a procedure is in vogue in all the universities
of Rajasthan that a reserve list is used for the
appointment on a vacant post caused during the
validity period of the reserve list, and numerous
appointments had been made in the last decade
from the reserve list. The university has also
submitted that if the view taken by the High Court
is held to be correct, it will create chaotic situation
- 305 -
in the university as all appointments so far made
from the reserve list will become assailable. It is
well settled that in matters relating to educational
institutions, if two interpretations are possible, the
courts would ordinarily be reluctant to accept that
interpretation which would upset and reverse the
long course of action and decision taken by such
educational authorities and would accept the
interpretation made by such educational
authorities.”
150. The Apex Court in the case of N.SURESH
NATHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS reported in 1992 (Supp) 584 regarding the
weightage to be given to the practice followed in the
department for a long time held as under : -
“4. In our opinion, this appeal has to be allowed.
There is sufficient material including the
admission of respondents Diploma-holders that
the practice followed in the Department for a long
time was that in the case of Diploma-holder Junior
Engineers who obtained the Degree during
service, the period of three years' service in the
grade for eligibility for promotion as Degree-
holders commenced from the date of obtaining the
- 306 -
Degree and the earlier period of service as
Diploma-holders was not counted for this purpose.
This earlier practice was clearly admitted by the
respondents Diploma-holders in para 5 of their
application made to the Tribunal at page 115 of
the paper book. This also appears to be the view
of the Union Public Service Commission contained
in their letter dated December 6,1968 extracted at
pages 99-100 of the paper book in the counter
affidavit of respondents 1 to 3. The real question,
therefore, is whether the construction made of this
provision in the rules on which the past practice
extending over a long period is based is untenable
to require upsetting it. If the past practice is based
on one of the possible constructions which can be
made of the rules then upsetting the same now
would not be appropriate. It is in this perspective
that the question raised has to be determined”.
151. The word “as far as may be” found in the
personality test clause (c) in the Rules of 1997, was the
subject matter of interpretation by the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal in the case of KADALI S.M. AND
OTHERS Vs. KPSC, BANGALORE AND OTHERS reported in
1996 KSLJ 553. There they were interpreting the said
- 307 -
phrase contained in Rule 9 of the 1966 Rules which is in
para materia with the personality test found at clause (c) in
the earlier portion. It held as under : -
“22. RE. OUESTION NOS 6 & 7 :-
Rule 9 of the Karnataka Recruitment of
Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by
Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966, reads,-
“Candidate to be called for Personality Test,--
The Commission shall call for a personality test,
as far as may be, ten times the number of
candidates as there are vacancies in the services
in the services in categories I and II respectively,
of schedule I in order of merit on the basis of the
results of written papers subject to making
provisions for calling candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward
Tribes and other Backward Classes to the extent
vacancies are reserved for them.”
There is no dispute that the number of
candidates to be called for interview, referred as
‘ten’ has been amended, as ‘five times’.
The Applicants contend that the candidates
listed for interview far exceeded five time the
number of posts to be filled up.
- 308 -
The Service Commission explained the
position, by pointing out that if only five time the
number of posts are considered in abstract, it was
impossible to consider the cases of candidates
belonging to the reserved categories and the latter
part of the above Rule required the Service
Commission to consider this aspect also. The five
times number on the basis of merit in the written
examination did not include requisite number of
those belonging to the categories of Scheduled
Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward
Classes and that in each category the candidates
to be called for interview shall have to be five
times the posts to be filled up. The candidates
belonging to these reserved categories are to be
first considered in the General merit Category
because they are entitled to compete for selection
in that category also. Further, Rule 9 of the said
Rules does not prescribe an inflexible, rigid
principle; it is a rule of guidance.
We agree with the contention of the Service
Commission. The Chart produced by the Service
Commission shows that it was necessary to call a
large number of candidates than five times the
posts to be filled up. This part, Rule 9 of the
- 309 -
said Rules itself indicates that it is a rule of
guidance; it states,-
“The Commission shall call for a personality
test, as far as may be, five times the number of
candidates as there are vacancies……”
( Emphasis is ours.).
The phrase ‘as far as may be’ vests a
discretion in the Service Commission to decide
upon the number of candidates to be called for
personality test, depending upon circumstances or
the situation in a particular case.
The Supreme Court construed this phrase,
found in a Rent Control Legislation in
SUBRAMANIAM SHANMUGHAM v. RAJENDRAN
M.L. AND OTHERS, the Court held that the phrase
means, ‘as the situation may be’.
Even otherwise, we fail to understand as to
how the Applicants can question the number of
candidates called for personality test. They
cannot restrain the number of competitors. More
the number, means a larger zone of consideration
and there is a chance of some extra-ordinary
personality stepping into the field of
consideration.
- 310 -
The contention of the Applicants is,
accordingly, rejected.”
152. The Apex Court in the case of RAJENDRA
SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P AND OTHERS
reported in 1998 (7) SCC 654 explaining the words “as far
as possible” used in Section 12A of the UP Imposition of Rent
Act, 1960 held as under : -
“6. The words "as far as possible" have
been used in the main Section as also in Clause
(d) of the Proviso. These words are not prohibitory
in nature. They rather connote a discretion vested
in the Prescribed Authority who can exercise that
discretion at the time of carving the surplus area
from out of the total holding of a person.
7. Section 5(1) provides that a tenure-holder
shall not be entitled to hold in the aggregate
throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of
ceiling area applicable to him.
8. Section 9 provides that the Prescribed
Authority shall, by general notice, published in
the official Gazette, call upon every tenure-holder
holding land in excess of the ceiling area
- 311 -
applicable to him, to submit a statement in
respect of all his holdings wherein he shall also
indicate the plots which he would like to retain as
part of his ceileing area. It is this choice which
referred in Section 12-A and it is provided that the
Prescribed Authority shall, as far as possible,
accept the choice indicated by the tenure-holder
as to the plots which he would like to retain as
part of his ceiling area. It is at this stage, that the
description can be exercised by the Prescribed
Authority and he may not take over those plots as
part of the surplus area. It is thus "discretion",
and not "compulsion", which constitutes the core
of this statutory provision. It is obvious that before
taking over any area as surplus area or leaving
any area as ceiling area of the tenure-holder, the
Prescribed Authority shall first take into
consideration the choice indicated by the tenure-
holder and if it is not possible, to act wholly upon
the choice, for which there may be variety of
reasons, the Prescribed Authority will proceed in
his own way to leave the area determined by him
as the ceiling area with the tenure-holder and
take over the other area as surplus area.”
- 312 -
153. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of N.SRIRAMAN VS.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER, reported in 2004 (7) KANT
LJ 152 where the question for consideration was, in the
absence of an order of appointment of selected officers,
whether the Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to stay
the selection process. It was held as under:
“16. The process of selection is in the
present case conducted at different stages and
passes through the scrutiny of different
constitutional authorities. Each stage dealt with
by such authority may in the wider sense of the
term constitute an order within the meaning of
Section 19 which would suffice for purposes of
invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
17. There is yet another angle from which
the question can be examined. The jurisdiction of
the Tribunal being wide and all embracing, the
provisions of Section 19 which are meant to
regulate the procedure for invoking the said
jurisdiction alone prevent the exercise of the same
only on account of the absence of any procedural
formality or deficiency. Procedure whether the
same is prescribed for trial of cases by Civil
- 313 -
Courts or for adjudication of disputes by
Tribunals is primarily aimed at facilitating an
adjudication and ensuring that the same is
arrived at in a manner that is fair and just so that
it inspires the confidence of all concerned. It is
only when the language employed in the statute
in so couched as to make a particular provision,
no matter procedural in nature, mandatory that
the same may be treated to be so. In order that
any such procedural requirement may be
mandatory, the legislation ought to prescribe the
consequence flowing from the failure of the
requirement or the language employed should be
so unmistakably clear that no other conclusion
may be possible except that the provision is
mandatory. The Legislature in this regard often
employs use of negative words which are an
indication of the provision being mandatory in
nature.”
154. A reading of the aforesaid judgments
demonstrates that a procedure which is in vogue for a
considerable length of time should be respected. If two
interpretations are possible, the Court would ordinarily be
reluctant to accept that interpretation which would upset
- 314 -
and reverse the long of course of action. Therefore, in the
aforesaid judgments, they declined to interfere with the
procedure which is followed for a considerable length of
time.
155. In the instant case, it is not a case of a
particular procedure being followed in the absence of any
rule of law in that regard. The Karnataka Legislature has
passed the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978,
(Karnataka Act No.14/1990) providing for recruitment of
Gazetted Probationers in exercise of powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with Section 8 of the said
Act, the Government of Karnataka has made the Karnataka
Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment of
Competitive Examinations)Rules, 1997. The said Rules
provides for holding of competitive examination, conduct of
competitive examination, reservation for Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Classes and how
the list of candidates suitable for appointment should be
prepared.
- 315 -
156. The area is fully covered by Legislation. Further
the Schedule to the said Rules provides for Scheme of
Examination. Thereafter the Government Order dated
03.05.1994 and 20.06.1995 provide for reservation of
appointments in direct recruitment in the State Civil
Services under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. This
Government Order dated 3rd May, 1994 is to be followed
while preparing the list of candidates suitable for
appointment as provided under Rule 11. These Rules and
Government Orders are in conformity with Article 16(4) of
the Constitution of India. While giving effect to these Rules
and Orders, KPSC has ignored the Constitutional goal and
scheme.
157. Article 14 of the Constitution provides that State
shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Similarly, Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India provides
that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in
- 316 -
matters relating to employment or appointment to any office
under the State. Article 16(2) provides that no citizen shall,
on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place
of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or
discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office
under the State. The procedure that is followed by the KPSC
offends Article 14 as well as Article 16(1) and (2).
158. Article 13 of the Constitution declares that the
clause inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental
rights be void. Clause (a) of Sub-Article (3) of Article 13
provides that in this Article, unless the contest otherwise
requires, ‘law’ includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule,
regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the
territory of India the force of law. Sub-Article (1) of Article
13 declares that all laws in force in the territory of India
immediately before the commencement of this Constitution,
in so far they are inconsistent with the provisions of this
part shall, to the extent of such inconsistency be void.
Similarly, sub-Article (2) declares that the State shall not
- 317 -
make any law which takes away or abridges the rights
conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of
this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
159. The effect of the procedure that is being followed
by the KPSC in the recruitment process is, unreserved
category candidates are deprived of an equal opportunity in
the matter relating to employment as well as appointment to
a Office in the State. This infringes their fundamental right
of equality before law and equal opportunity in matters of
public employment. Therefore the procedure followed by
them being contrary to the Rules and the Government
Orders, and as it offends Article 14 and 16(1) of the
Constitution, the said procedural lapse cannot be condoned
under any circumstances.
160. Therefore, the aforesaid judgments on which
reliance is placed really have no application to the facts of
this case as in none of those cases the long practice for a
long period of time did offend any fundamental rights of the
- 318 -
citizens of this Country much less, the fundamental right
under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
LEGAL POSITION:
161. Public employment is a scarce commodity in
economic terms. As the supply is scarce, demand is chasing
that commodity. This is reality of life. The concept of
'equality of opportunity' in public employment concerns an
individual, whether that individual belongs to general
category or backward class. The conflicting claim of
individual right under Article 16(1) and the preferential
treatment given to a backward class under Article 16 (4) has
to be balanced. Backward classes seek justice. General class
in public employment seeks equity. The difficulty comes in
when the third variable comes in, namely, efficiency in
service. Article 16(4) has to be construed in the light of
Article 335 of the Constitution. Inadequacy in representation
and backwardness of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
are circumstances which enable the State Government to act
under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. Reservation is
- 319 -
necessary for transcending caste and not for perpetuating it.
Reservation has to be used in a limited sense otherwise it
will perpetuate casteism in the country. Reservation is
under-written by a special justification. Equality in Article
16(1) is individual- specific whereas reservation in Article
16(4) and Article 16(4A) is enabling. reservation under Article
16(4) is intended merely to give adequate representation to
backward communities. It cannot be used for creating
monopolies or for unduly or illegitimately disturbing the
legitimate interests of other employees. A reasonable balance
must be struck between the claims of backward classes and
claims of other employees as well as the requirement of
efficiency of administration. Article 16(4) speaks of adequate
representation, but not proportionate representation
although proportion of population of backward classes to the
total population would certainly be relevant. The proportion
of the population of a caste is a consideration to be taken
note of in determining the percentage of representation to be
given to that caste in the 50% posts reserved for SC and ST
and other Backward Classes. It has no relevance in
- 320 -
determining the percentage of representation to be given in
the total posts to be filled up. It is because the Supreme
Court in the case of Indira Sawhney has fixed the percentage
of 50% to be filled up by reserved category. Irrespective of
the population, the reservation cannot exceed 50% of the
total number of posts. In this regard, it is relevant to notice
the object behind Article 16(4) as explained by Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly.
“...there are three points of view
which it is necessary for us to reconcile if
we are to produce a workable proposition
which will be accepted by all. Of the three
points of view, the first is that there shall be
euqlity (Sic.) of opportunity for all citizens. It
is the desire of many Members of this
House that every individual who is qualified
for a particular post should be free to apply
for that post, to sit for examinations and to
have his qualifications tested so as to
determine whether he is fit for the post or
not and that there ought to be no
limitations, there ought to be no hindrance
in the operation of this principle of equality
or opportunity. Another view mostly shared
- 321 -
by a section of the House is that, if this
principle is to be operative and it ought to be
operative in their judgment to its fullest
extent – there ought to be no reservations of
any sort for any class or community at all,
that all citizens, if they are qualified, should
be placed on the same footing of equality so
far as the public services are concerned.
That is the second point of view we have.
Then we have quite a massive opinion
which insists that, although theoretically it
is good to have the principle that there shall
be equality of opportunity, there must at the
same time be a provision made for the entry
of certain communities which have so far
been outside the administration. As I said,
the Drafting Committee had to produce a
formula which would reconcile these three
points of view, firstly, that there shall be
equality of opportunity, secondly that there
shall be reservations in favour of certain
communities which have not so far had a
'proper look-in' so to say into the
administration. If honourable Members will
bear these facts in mind – the three
principles we had to reconcile, - they will
see that no better formula could be
- 322 -
produced than the one that is embodies in
Sub-clause (3) of Article 10 of the
Constitution. It is a generic principle. At the
same time, as I said, we had to reconcile
this formula with the demand made by
certain communities that the administration
which has now - for historical reasons -
been controlled by one community or a few
communities, that situation should
disappear and that the others also must
have an opportunity of getting into the
public services. Supposing, for instance, we
were to concede in full the demand of those
communities who have not been so far
employed in the public service to the fullest
extent, what would really happen is, we
shall be completely destroying the first
proposition upon which we are all agreed,
namely, that there shall be an equality of
opportunity. Let me give an illustration.
Supposing, for instance, reservations were
made for a community or a collection of
communities, the total of which came to
something like 70 per cent of the total posts
under the State and only 30 per cent are
retained as the unreserved. Could anybody
say that the reservation of 30 per cent as
- 323 -
open to general competition would be
satisfactory from the point of view of giving
effect to the first principle, namely, that
there shall be equality of opportunity? It
cannot be in my judgment. Therefore the
seats to be reserved, if the reservation is to
be consistent with Sub-clause (1) of Article
10, must be confined to a minority of seats.
It is then only that the first principle could
find its place in the Constitution and
effective in operation. If honourable
Members understand this position that we
have to safeguard two things, namely, the
principle of equality of opportunity and at
the same time satisfy the demand of
communities which have not had so far
representation in the State, then, I am sure
they will agree that unless you use some
such qualifying phrase as "backward" the
exception made in favour of reservation will
ultimately eat up the rule altogether.
Nothing of the rule will remain. That I think
if I may say so, is the justification why the
Drafting Committee undertook on its own
shoulders the responsibility of introducing
the word "backward" which, I admit, did not
originally find a place in the fundamental
- 324 -
right in the way in which it was passed by
this Assembly....
Somebody asked me: "What is a
backward community"? Well, I think any
one who reads the language of the draft
itself will find that we have left it to be
determined by each local Government. A
backward community is a community which
is backward in the opinion of the
Government.
The above material makes it amply
clear that the objective behind Clause (4) of
Article 16 was the sharing of State power.
The State power which was almost
exclusively monopolised by the upper
castes i.e., a few communities, was now
sought to be made broad - based. The
backward communities who were till then
kept out of apparatus of power, were sought
to be inducted there into and since that was
not practicable in the normal course, a
special provision was made to effectuate
the said objective. In short, the objective
behind Article 16(4) is empowerment of the
deprived backward communities - to give
them a share in the administrative
- 325 -
apparatus and in the governance of the
community.”
162. A Nine member Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court on a reference to finally settle the legal position
relating to reservation in the case of INDIRA SAWHNEY Vs.
UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1993 SC 477 formulated
11 questions and have laid down the law. The said law
declared by the Apex Court is binding on all Courts. The law
laid down which is relevant for the purpose of this case is as
under : -
(1) Reservation in public services
either by legislative or executive action is
neither a matter of policy nor a political
issue. The higher courts in the country are
constitutionally obliged to exercise the
power of judicial review in every matter
which is constitutional in nature or has
potential of constitutional repercussions.
(2) (a) Constitutional bar under
Article 16(2) against state for not
discriminating on race, religion or caste is
as much applicable to Article 16(4) as to
- 326 -
Article 16(1) as they are part of the same
scheme and serve same constitutional
purpose of ensuring equality. Identification
of backward class by caste is against the
Constitution.
(b) The prohibition is not mitigated by
using the word, 'only' in Article 16(2) as a
cover and evolving certain socio-economic
indicators and then applying it to caste as
the identification then suffers from the
same vice. Such identification is apt to
become arbitrary as well as the indicators
evolved and applied to one community may
be equally applicable to other community
which is excluded and the backward class
of which is denied similar benefit.
(c) Social and educational backward
class under Article 340 being narrower in
import than backward class in Article 16(4)
it has to be construed in restricted manner.
And the words educationally backward in
this Article cannot be disregarded while
determining backwardness.
(3) Reservation under Article 16(4)
being for any class of citizens and citizen
- 327 -
having been defined in Chapter II of the
Constitution includes not only Hindus but
Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Budhs, Jains
etc. the principle of identification has to be
of universal application so as to extend to
every community and not only to those
who are either converts from Hinduism or
some of whom to (who) carry same
occupation as some of the Hindus.
(4) Reservation being extreme form of
protective measure or affirmative action it
should be confined to minority of seats.
Even though the Constitution does not lay
down any specific bar but the
constitutional philosophy being against
proportional equality the principle of
balancing equality ordains reservation, of
any manner, not to exceed 50%.
(5) Article 16(4) being part of the
scheme of equality doctrine it is exhaustive
of reservation, therefore, no reservation
can be made under Article 16(1).
(6) ………
(7) ………
- 328 -
(8) Creamy layer amongst backward
class of citizens must be excluded by
fixation of proper income, properly (Sic.) or
status criteria.
In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court also held as
under:-
“Reservation in promotion is
constitutionally impermissible as, once the
advantaged and disadvantaged are made
equal and are brought in one class or
group then any further benefit extended for
promotion on the inequality existing prior to
be brought in the group would be treating
equals unequally. It would not be
eradicating the effects of past
discrimination but perpetuating it.”
163. It is in this background, the Parliament brought
the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995;
The Constitution (Eighty-First Amendment) Act, 2000; The
Constitution (Eighty-Second Amendment) Act, 2000 and the
Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001. All those
- 329 -
amendments were challenged before the Apex Court in the
case of M.NAGARAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in
(2006) 8 SCC 212 where after elaborate discussions of the
earlier judgments and the amendments, the Apex Court
declared the law as under:-
“121. The impugned constitutional
amendments by which Articles 16(4-A) and
16(4-B) have been inserted flow from
Article 16(4). They do not alter the
structure of Article 16(4). They retain the
controlling factors or the compelling
reasons, namely, backwardness and
inadequacy of representation which
enables the States to provide for
reservation keeping in mind the overall
efficiency of the State administration under
Article 335. These impugned amendments
are confined only to SCs and STs. They do
not obliterate any of the constitutional
requirements, namely, ceiling-limit of 50%
(quantitative limitation), the concept of
creamy layer (qualitative exclusion), the
sub-classification between OBC on one
hand and SCs and STs on the other hand
as held in Indra Sawhney, the concept of
- 330 -
post-based roster with in-built concept of
replacement as held in R.K. Sabharwal.
122. We reiterate that the ceiling limit of
50%, the concept of creamy layer and the
compelling reasons, namely,
backwardness, inadequacy of
representation and overall administrative
efficiency are all constitutional
requirements without which the structure
of equality of opportunity in Article 16
would collapse.
123. However, in this case, as stated
above, the main issue concerns the "extent
of reservation". In this regard the State
concerned will have to show in each case
the existence of the compelling reasons,
namely, backwardness, inadequacy of
representation and overall administrative
efficiency before making provision for
reservation. As stated above, the impugned
provision is an enabling provision. The
State is not bound to make reservation for
SC/ST in matter of promotions. However if
they wish to exercise their discretion and
make such provision, the State has to
collect quantifiable data showing
- 331 -
backwardness of the class and
inadequacy of representation of that class
in public employment in addition to
compliance of Article 335. It is made clear
that even if the State has compelling
reasons, as stated above, the State will
have to see that its reservation provision
does not lead to excessiveness so as to
breach the ceiling-limit of 50% or obliterate
the creamy layer or extend the reservation
indefinitely.
124. Subject to the above, we uphold the
constitutional validity of the Constitution
(Seventy Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995;
the Constitution (Eighty First Amendment)
Act, 2000; the Constitution (Eighty Second
Amendment) Act, 2000 and the
Constitution (Eighty Fifth Amendment) Act,
2001.
164. In the case of UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAMESH
RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 7 SCC 234, the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court dealing with the
question of migration of meritorious reserved candidates
from general merit to the reserved category held as under:
- 332 -
“72. We sum up our answers-:
i) MRC candidates who avail the benefit of Rule
16(2) and adjusted in the reserved category
should be counted as part of the reserved pool for
the purpose of computing the aggregate
reservation quotas. The seats vacated by MRC
candidates in the General Pool will be offered to
General category candidates.
ii) By operation of Rule 16 (2), the reserved status
of an MRC candidate is protected so that his/her
better performance does not deny him of the
chance to be allotted to a more preferred service.
iii) The amended Rule 16 (2) only seeks to
recognize the inter se merit between two classes
of candidates i.e. a) meritorious reserved category
candidates b) relatively lower ranked reserved
category candidates, for the purpose of allocation
to the various Civil Services with due regard for
the preferences indicated by them.
iv) The reserved category candidates "belonging to
OBC, SC/ST categories" wso are selected on merit
and placed in the list of General/Unreserved
category candidates can choose to migrate to the
- 333 -
respective reserved category at the time of
allocation of services. Such migration as
envisaged by Rule 16 (2) is not inconsistent with
Rule 16 (1) or Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the
Constitution.”
165. Therefore the law on the point is well settled.
Article 16(4) protects interests of certain sections of society.
It has to be balanced against Article 16(1) which protects
the interests of every citizen of the entire society. They
should be harmonised because they are restatements of
principle of equality under Article 14.
166. General category candidates are not entitled to
fill the reserved posts. Reserved category candidates are
entitled to compete for the general category posts. When
persons belonging to reserved category get selected in open
competition on the basis of their merit, they are not to be
counted in the reserved category against the reserved
category quota. He can be considered for appointment only
against General category post and the quota of the particular
- 334 -
reserved category cannot be reduced by treating his
appointment as one made against the post earmarked for the
reserved category to which he belongs. It is open to the
authorities to fill the posts meant for reserved category
candidates from amongst the persons in such categories
after excluding those who have found their place in general
merit. The fact that considerable number of members of
backward class have been appointed/promoted against
general seats in the State services may be a relevant factor
for the State Government to review the question of
continuing reservation for the said class.
167. It is now well entrenched principle of law that
those members belonging to reserved category who get
selected in the open competition on the basis of their own
merit have right to be included in the general list/unreserved
category and not to be counted against the quota reserved
for Scheduled Caste. Reserved category candidate who is
adjudged more meritorious than open category candidates is
entitled to choose the particular service/cadre/post as per
- 335 -
his choice/preference and he cannot be compelled to accept
appointment to an inferior post leaving the more important
service/cadre/post in the reserved category for less
meritorious candidate of that category. On his appointment
to the service/cadre/post of his choice/preference, the
reserved category candidate cannot be treated as appointed
against the open category post. The appointment of less
meritorious candidate of the reserved category against the
service/cadre/post of his choice and denial of such
appointment to more meritorious candidate of that category
would result in blatant violation of the doctrine of equality
enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
168. The concept of reservation in Article 16 (4) is
hedged by three Constitutional requirements, namely
backwardness of class, inadequacy of representation in
public employment of that class and over all efficiency of the
administration. In making reservations for the backward
classes, the State cannot ignore the fundamental rights of
the rest of the citizens. The special provision under Article
- 336 -
16 (4) must, therefore, strike a balance between several
relevant considerations and proceed objectively. The
doctrine of equality of opportunity in clause (1) of Article 16
is to be reconciled in favour of backward classes under
clause (4) of Article 16 in such a manner that the latter while
serving the cause of backward classes shall not
unreasonably encroach upon the field of equality.
169. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that,
the KPSC has followed the procedure prescribed in the
Government Orders dated 3.5.1994 and 20.6.1995 in
preparing the eligibility list of candidates who are admitted
to the written examination and who are to be called for the
personality test in 1998, 1999 and 2004 batch. It is illegal.
It is contrary to the Rules. The said Government Order has
to be applied after the personality test is over and at the time
of preparation of list of candidates suitable for appointment
under Rule 11 only. Thus, admittedly the ratio prescribed in
the Rules has not been followed. The resultant position is,
meritorious candidates from the unreserved category are
- 337 -
denied the opportunity to take the written examination and
also denied the opportunity for being called for the
personality test. It violates Article 14 and 16(1) of the
Constitution. It also violates the Rules and the Government
Order referred to supra and, therefore, we have no hesitation
in holding that the procedure followed by the KPSC in
preparing the list of candidates who are admitted to the
written examination and the list of candidates who are to be
called for the personality list is unconstitutional and
contrary to the Rules and the Government Order referred to
supra.
170. From the material on record it is clear that,
none of the candidates who took part in the selection
process are in any way responsible for KPSC following the
aforesaid procedure. Even the candidates belonging to
unreserved category did not insist on any claim by virtue of
the Government Order at the stage of written examination or
at the stage of personality test. It is not as if all the persons
who have taken the written examination and attended the
personality test are not eligible for being selected for the
- 338 -
posts to which they are selected. It is submitted on behalf of
the KPSC that, hardly a handful of candidates might have
migrated from the unreserved category to the reserved
category and those candidates have no role to play in this
regard.
171. It is settled law that for the misdeeds of some
candidates, honest and meritorious candidates should not
suffer. Candidates should not be made to suffer by enmass
cancellation leading to termination of their services. Every
endeavour should be made to segregate the non-meritorious
candidates from those who are without any stigma and had
been selected because of their sheer merit and not on
account of any illegality. It is only when such segregation is
not possible, the Court may think of canceling the entire
selection. However, those candidates whose names find a
place in the list of candidates suitable for appointment, if
they did not possess the requisite eligibility criteria/merit,
then, the appointment of such persons have to be set aside.
Therefore on the ground that the KPSC has not followed the
Rules in preparing the list of candidates to be admitted to
- 339 -
the written examination and the list of candidates who
should be called for personality test, the entire selection of
1998, 1999 and 2004 batch cannot be set aside.
172. The segregation of tainted/ineligible candidates
who have secured employment is possible. For example, as
per Table A12, the number of posts reserved for 3A category
is 11 and the number of persons who have been called for
the personality test in the ratio of 1:5 is 55. Whereas, the
number of persons called for the personality test is 169. If
the names of 39 selected persons find a place in the list
within the first 55 names, their selection stands. If among
them, 28 persons had the requisite merit and they are
selected against the General Merit category, they are entitled
to be appointed as General Merit candidate. In addition to
that, 11 posts have to be filled up from the candidates
belonging to 3A category. But if the names of these 39
persons do not find a place in the first 55 names, then, such
persons’ appointment would be void, ab initio. The reason is,
persons below Sl.No.55 in the list of 3A category candidates
- 340 -
lack necessary merit to be called for the personality test.
They did not have the eligibility. Therefore, they were not
within the zone of consideration. If in the personality test,
by virtue of more marks given to them, if their names find
place in the list of candidates selected for appointment to the
post under Rule l1 of the Rules, it is obvious that it is the
marks which they have secured in the personality test which
has played a crucial role in their selection. In other words, a
candidate who was not eligible to be called for the
personality test, has secured a place in the merit list and
therefore such appointment cannot be upheld. This is where
the report of Mr. Hota assumes importance. When the
marks secured by the candidates in the written examination
are made known, in other words, they are not kept
confidential, these candidates attempted to approach the
members of the KPSC to secure more marks, so that they
are selected for the said post. Therefore the candidates who
are not eligible to be called for the personality test, if they
have secured more marks in the personality test and are
selected, it cannot be said that they were all innocent and
- 341 -
their appointment is in accordance with law. Therefore, the
said appointment is liable to be set aside and the merit list is
to be prepared excluding such persons and if there is any
short fall, give the said posts to persons whose names finds
place within the prescribed limit.
173. The particulars furnished by the KPSC as
aforesaid discloses that in 1998 batch more persons than
the prescribed ratio are called for the personality test in
respect of all the reserved categories. Consequently, in 1998
batch, the name of the 35 persons belonging to the reserved
category find a place in the General Merit category. In 1999
batch, 11 persons belonging to reserved category were
selected under the General Merit category and in the year
2004, 26 persons out of 74 persons belonging to reserved
category were selected in the General Merit category. It is
made clear that if these category of persons who are selected
in the General Merit category or Revised category, if their
names find a place within the permissible ratio of persons to
be called for the personality test, they are to be treated as
validly appointed. But if their names do not find a place in
- 342 -
the permissible ratio, such appointments are liable to be set
aside and accordingly set aside.
174. Therefore the KPSC keeping in mind the
procedure laid down by us, has to prepare a list of persons
belonging to each of the reserved category in 1998, 1999 and
2004 batch. In the said reserved category list, the number of
persons who should be called for the personality test in the
ratio of 1:5 equal to the post reserved in that category have
to be prepared. Then find out from that list, whether the
persons who are in the selected list both under the General
Merit and Reserved category find a place. If their names are
within that limit, their appointment is valid. If their names
do not find a place within that list, notwithstanding the
marks which they have secured in the personality test, their
names have to be removed from the merit list and
consequently, their appointment is to be set aside.
175. This exercise shall be done by the KPSC within
two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
- 343 -
POINT NO.2 - ANNULLED MARKS
176. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. M.B. Nargund
submits that the direction of this Court earlier to KPSC to
redo moderation in the manner suggested by the KPSC in
para (b) of its memo dated 27.03.2002 is now carried out,
this substantially proves the contention of the petitioner
regarding the illegality in evaluation and therefore the
revised list prepared by the KPSC according to the direction
of the High Court order is to be upheld and given effect to.
177. Sri S. Vijay Shankar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for some of the successful candidates assailing the
revised selection list for the post of Gazetted Probationers,
1988 contended that as the KPSC has become functus
officio, they had no jurisdiction to revise the final selection
list as they have done now. In the affidavit filed on
19.3.2016, explaining the circumstances under which this
revision of selection list was done, in para-2, they have
categorically stated that when once they have sent the final
list by following the required procedure, they had become
- 344 -
functus officio, but in view of the Government direction and
dictates, they were constrained to re-do the whole thing and
therefore, it is clear that this revised selection list was done
by the KPSC at the dictate of the Government, which had no
authority to do it. On that score, the said list has to be
quashed.
178. Further he contended that in the affidavit
through out they have referred to moderation and scaling.
However, no material is placed on record to demonstrate
what is the basis for the so-called moderation and scaling.
At any rate, before moderation or scaling, the successful
candidates whose status have now been seriously affected
were neither notified nor heard as were the requirement of
law and therefore, the said list is in violation of the principles
of natural justice. He also contended that scaling and
moderation is a technical aspect and absolutely no material
is placed on record to demonstrate what is the procedure to
be followed either in moderating or in scaling.
- 345 -
179. Lastly he contended that because of the so-
called scaling or moderation, candidates who are holding
higher posts for the last 10 years are now pushed down,
thus seriously affecting their civil rights. Even if the Court
were to lay down the procedure to be followed by the KPSC,
it has to be only prospective since more than 10 years, these
persons are holding the said posts. In support of his
contentions, he relied upon several judgments of the Apex
Court including Sanjay Singh –vs- U.P. Public Service
Commission reported in (2007)3 SCC 720 and Sunil Kumar –
vs- Bihar Public Service Commission reported in (2016) 2 SCC
495. He also contended that the KPSC being the
Constitutional authority is vested with the power to conduct
selection to these Government Officers. It is an independent
body and the Government has no role to play in this
selection and when such being a case, they could not have
issued any direction to the KPSC and even if the directions
were given, KPSC is not obliged to act in terms of the said
directions and therefore, this revised selection list seen from
any angle is vitiated and cannot be given effect to. He also
- 346 -
contended that when this Court appointed the Fact Finding
Committee, the successful candidates were not parties and
the said Committee is constituted before they were made
parties. The job assigned to the Committee was a technical
job. The learned Members representing the various State
Holders are made the Members of the Committees, who do
no have requisite expertise to go into the question. Similarly
when the said report is submitted and successful candidates
have not been heard, it also violates the principles of natural
justice and therefore, the said reported submitted by the
Fact Finding Committee appointed by this Court, cannot be
acted upon and cannot be relied upon.
180. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the KPSC in answer to the argument that
KPSC had become functus officio and that after submitting
the select list to the Government, the Government directed to
them to revise the list, submits that there was no such
direction from the Government. He has referred to the order
sheet in the present case, where in view of the CID report it
- 347 -
became clear that annulled marks are taken into
consideration in preparing the final select list, KPSC was
called upon to exclude those three persons and then they
submitted they have to interview 94 persons as a
consequence of such exclusion and then arrive at a select
list.
181. In fact in a sealed cover they had given the data
showing the consequences of such exclusion and such
inclusion. Thereafter they were granted six weeks time to
conduct an interview which was done and consequently they
submitted to the government a list in a sealed cover. It is by
virtue of the Court Order the said list was prepared.
Therefore, he submits that the KPSC has not submitted any
revised list to the Government as contemplated under Rule
11 of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers
(Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997, the
said list is submitted as per directions issued by this Court
in these proceedings.
- 348 -
182. As per the revised list, the consequences are,
because of the exclusion of those three persons who had
become ineligible to attend interview and annulment of
marks, 28 persons will go out of the list and new 28
candidates will come into the list. Some of them may loose
their job. If a candidate who was ineligible is appointed and
subsequently when it is found that he was ineligible, no
equity or law would come to his rescue to continue in the
said post. Law of adverse possession would not apply to
service law. However, if persons who were wrongly denied
the berth after considerable lapse of time also cannot be
considered.
183. This Court in W.P. Nos. 12548-589/2002 and
other connected matters decided on 11th October, 2002 held
that the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal
declaring that the entire valuation of Answer Scripts is
arbitrary and consequently directing fresh evaluation in
terms of para 78 of the said order was set-aside. However,
this Court declared that moderation/random review carried
- 349 -
out by the Head Examiners and Chief Examiners with
reference to the subjects mentioned in Clause (b) of para 38
was held to be inadequate, improper and illegal and quashed
the same. Consequently, this Court directed the KPSC to
redo a fresh moderation in regard to the aforesaid Eighteen
optional subjects and also General Studies in the manner
suggested by the KPSC in para (b) and its memo dated
27.03.2002. Further, it directed that the entire process of
moderation shall be done under supervision of the Secretary
of the KPSC. Further, it was directed that after evaluation
and moderation as aforesaid, KPSC shall redo the list of
candidates to be called for personality test, as per the rules
and then proceed with the selection as per rules. If on
revaluation, such candidates are found to be qualified, they
shall also be considered for selection of candidates for
interview.
184. By an order dated 10.02.2003 passed on I.A. IV,
this Court accepted the request of the KPSC and permitted
the KPSC to carry out fresh moderation/random review in
- 350 -
regard to four papers, i.e., in Animal Husbandary &
Veterinary Science, Paper 1 & 2 and Geology Paper 1 & 2 as
per the methodology mentioned in para 39(b) of the order
dated 11.10.2002. It was made clear that in other respects,
the order dated 11.10.2002 remained undisturbed.
Subsequently, again this Court passed an order on
04.07.2003 on I.A. V and gave an illustration to clarify the
manner in which their order dated 11.10.2002 is to be
implemented by giving an illustration. This order of the High
Court was affirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal
Nos.6172-6222/2005 by its order dated 6th October, 2005
and the said order has attained finality. In the aforesaid
proceedings, the successful candidates in the examinations
were not made parties. Nonetheless, the said orders equally
bind each and every successful party. It was a judgment
rendered in rem.
185. Subsequent to the aforesaid orders, KPSC
proceeded with the selection and after following the
procedure, a final selection list was forwarded to the
- 351 -
Government for appointment. In terms of the said list,
successful candidates were appointed for the post in various
Departments of the Government. Challenging the said final
list, the candidates, whose names did not figure in the list,
filed an application before the Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal challenging the said final selection list. The said
applications are pending. As no interim order was passed in
the said proceedings, the Government proceeded to issue
appointment orders to 383 selected candidates. The
petitioners filed W.P. No.11550/2008 seeking a writ of
mandamus complaining that the Government has not taken
any suitable action in terms of the report of the Three-Man
Committee and K.K.Mishra’s report, which clearly
demonstrates as to how K.Rameshwarappa, Prof.K.Shivanna
and Sri.A.K.Monnappa, Secretary of the KPSC have
committed offences of Criminal conspiracy, breach of trust
and manipulation of records. When the said writ petition
came up for consideration, the learned Government
Advocate stated that the Government will order investigation
in the matter to the CID. The CID after Enquiry submitted
- 352 -
the report. In the said report, it is categorically stated that a
perusal of the records and the answer scripts show that the
KPSC has taken into consideration the marks awarded by
the Head/Chief Examiners at the time of scaling. Since the
KPSC has taken the annulled marks awarded by the
Head/Chief Examiner, it is a violation of the directions
issued by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. Nos. 12548-
589/2002. This wrong step of the KPSC has resulted in
tilting of marks and ultimate results.
186. It is in this background (as is clear from the
affidavit dated 19.03.2006 of Sri.Manoj Kumar Meena, the
Secretary of the KPSC, filed in the Court, in compliance of
the order dated 18.11.2014) it is stated that during the
pendency of these writ petitions, on 02.08.2013 a meeting
was called for by the Principal Secretary, Department of
Personal and Administrative Reforms (for short `DPAR’) in
order to discuss the action required to be taken by the State
Government in pursuance of the CID report, requiring the
Secretary of the KPSC to participate in the said meeting.
- 353 -
187. Thereafter, by a communication dated
27.08.2013, the Principal Secretary, DPAR wrote to the
Commission. The relevant portion of the said communication
reads as under:
“In view of the above, I am directed to request you
to take action/corrective action on the following
points as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka and furnish a detailed report to
Government:
To take action on the allegations/findings of the
CID in respect of Gazetted Probationers
Examinations of 1998, 1999 and 2004, as per the
decisions in the meeting held under the
Chairmanship of Chief Secretary to Government
(statement enclosed).
To take action with specific reference to the most
serious allegation No.3 and findings of the CID
thereon with reference to the 1998 Gazetted
Probationers Examination and to redo the
moderation and scaling in accordance with the
directions given by the Hon’ble High Court in its
order dated: 11-10-2002.
- 354 -
Redo the selection lists of 1998, 1999 and 2004,
as indicated above, if necessary, particularly
identifying the illegal beneficiaries who have been
appointed and also identifying the fresh
candidates who have to be included in their
places and to send final select lists by following
the required procedures.
To indicate the action taken against the officials
of the KPSC, namely Sri.K.Narasimha,
Sri.Gopikrishna and Sri.M.B.Banakar, who are
indicted in the CID report.”
188. Though at that stage, KPSC was not a party to
the above writ petitions, they appeared before the Court on
26.08.2013 through its Advocates. Thereafter, they
submitted the data of information required by the State
Government. Since the Government by its communication
dated 27.08.2013 had directed the KPSC to redo the
selection list of 1998, 1999 and 2004 particularly identifying
the illegal beneficiaries, who had been appointed and also
identifying the fresh candidates, who have been included in
their places and to send final select list by following the
required procedures, the KPSC, by a communication dated
- 355 -
04.09.2013 pleaded their inability to redo the selection on
the ground that it is not within their powers as once the final
list is published and forwarded to the Government, the KPSC
becomes functus officio.
189. On verification of the records by the then
Secretary, it was found that the annulled Chief Examiner
and Head Examiner marks had been taken into
consideration for the purpose of moderation and scaling,
which was contrary to the directions issued by this Court in
W.P. Nos.12548-89/2002 and connected matters. By a
communication dated 04.09.2013 the KPSC had written to
the Government that the cross-checking exercise has been
undertaken and considering enormity of the task, four
weeks’ time more specifically up to 30.09.2013 was required
to complete the process and to provide information including
the marks awarded by the Examiner, Head examiner, Chief
Examiner and any other relevant information, to assist the
State Government in this regard. On 05.09.2013, this Court
directed the Commission to supply the additional data
- 356 -
required by the State Government. On 17.09.2013, the
Commission wrote to the Government stating that after
undertaking the exercise of cross-checking in respect of the
moderation and scaling of 1998 batch, it was found that a
total of nine answer scripts covering different subjects were
required to be subjected to third valuation. Giving the details
of the said scripts, it requested two weeks’ time to complete
the process of third valuation and to convey the outcome.
On 18.09.2013, this Court directed the KPSC to file a
statement indicating its stand on the findings contained in
the CID report. In respect of the finding of the violation of
the High Court order, on 20.09.2013, the KPSC filed its
report as under:
“Stand of the Commission: This finding is correct.
In pursuance of the said finding the commission is
re-doing the exercise of Moderation and scaling in
order to find out, if in fact there would be tilting of
the total marks secured by a candidate and
consequently the select list, if the marks awarded
by Chief/Head Examiners were not taken into
consideration during moderation and scaling. The
said exercise is being undertaken as per the
direction of the State Government. In doing so, it
- 357 -
is found that a total of 9 scripts in 4 subjects are
required to be subjected to Third Evaluation and
hence the Commission sought time till
30.09.2013. This will be followed by the
preparation of merit list and if any fresh
candidate comes within the 1:5 eligibility renge
(as per merit/reservation) then personality test
will be arranged for the said candidates. Based
on the outcome, merit list needs to be re-drawn as
also the final select list. Considering the
contingency and complexity further time may be
required by the Commission to complete the entire
exercise.”
190. On 20.09.2013, this Court appointed a Fact
Finding Committee. In the mean time, the KPSC completed
the third valuation of the additional answer scripts required
to be subjected to third valuation. On 19.02.2014 during
the course of hearing the progress in the re-moderation and
scaling process was enquired to by this Court. The KPSC
informed the Court that a fresh eligibility list (1:20) for
personality test (for short ‘New PT List’) having been
prepared 94 candidates, who were not interviewed earlier
- 358 -
will find a place in the said list and 94 candidates, who were
interviewed earlier will not find a place in the list.
191. On 03.03.2014, a memo was filed by the KPSC
giving the said particulars of 94 candidates. The memo
reads as follows:
“MEMO
The undersigned counsel for the 3rd
Respondent Karnataka Public Service
Commission (for short ‘Commission’) produces
along with the present memo the information that
this Hon’ble Court had required of the
Commission during the course of hearing of the
above writ petitions on 19-02-2014. the said
information is furnished along with the present
Memo under the following heads:
A. List of three selected candidates
whose names do not figure in the new Personality
Test (PT) eligibility list.
B. List of 94 candidates who were
earlier called for PT but who do not figure in the
new PT list.
- 359 -
C. List of 94 candidates who have to be
interviewed as per the new PT list, which
candidates were not interviewed earlier.
D. Names of the persons who were
responsible or who carried out, the task of fresh
moderation as per the order dated 10-10-2002
passed in W.P.No.12548/2002 & connected
matters.
The present Memo along with the
information furnished may kindly be taken on
record, in the interest of justice and equity”.
192. After taking note of the same, this Court passed
an order to the following effect:
“C is with regard to list of 94 persons who have to
be interviewed as per the new PT list, which
candidates were not interviewed earlier. Learned
counsel for KPSC states that time may be granted
in order to ascertain the present addresses of
those candidates so as to notify them about the
date of interview. Once the interviews are held,
the effect of performance of those candidates on
the final selection list would have to be
considered and if the final selection list requires
an alteration, then those persons who are
presently working and would be affected would
- 360 -
also have to be heard in the matter. Therefore, he
seeks six weeks time for the said exercise.”
193. In the course of these proceedings on the
information furnished by the KPSC in particular, the names
of the persons who are responsible or who carried out the
task of fresh moderation as per the order dated 10.10.2002
passed in W.P. No.12548/2002 and connected matters,
the Court by an order dated 21.03.2014 directed issue of
individual notice to those persons to show-cause as to why
contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated
against them. Accordingly, notices were issued, all of them
appeared before the Court, engaged a counsel and filed
affidavits showing cause.
194. Sri.B.A.Harish Gowda, was the Secretary of the
KPSC at the relevant point of time. He is the person, who
took up the process of the moderation and scaling. In his
affidavit, he has stated that the said process involved three
stages:
- 361 -
(i) random selection of answer scripts and
review/evaluation/moderation;
(ii) Calculation of average variation; and
(iii) Applying the average variation to the answer scripts
valued by the same examiner.
195. By the time the first stage was over, the Apex
Court in SLP Nos.11589-639/2003 and connected matters
ordered status-quo. Therefore, he stopped the
implementation of the High Court Order. By the time, the
stay order was vacated upholding the order of this Court, he
had been transferred and in his place, Sri.B.S.Ram Prasad
had taken charge. Therefore, his contention was, the
mistakes now pointed out are all at the second and third
stages and therefore he is not responsible in any manner.
Sri.B.S.Ram Prasad has also filed his affidavit setting out the
steps that were required to be carried out by the KPSC as
per the directions issued and the previous Secretary has
started the process of moderation and scaling. After
assuming the charge as the Secretary on 12.08.2004 as
moderation was substantially completed, he continued with
- 362 -
the said process with the assistance of the staff, who were
involved in the entire process. Having regard to the time
frame within which the entire process had to be completed,
it was done. He absolutely had no knowledge of the error
that had crept in at that stage, as such nothing can be
attributed to him. In a career of 30 years as a Government
servant there has been no black-mark whatsoever. The
other officials also have filed their affidavits pointing out that
they have no role at all in the process of moderation or they
had retired or transferred. Both Sri B.A.Harish Gowda and
Sri B.S.Ram Prasad have since retired from service.
196. One thing that emerges from the aforesaid facts
is that the previous Secretary is trying to shift the blame on
the Secretary, who took charge after his leaving the
Commission. The subsequent incumbent is trying to put the
blame on the previous Secretary. But from the material on
record, it is clear that none of these persons had any
personal interest in any of the candidates. In fact the
members of the Commission had difference of opinion with
- 363 -
Sri.Harish Gowda regarding the manner, in which this
process is to be conducted. No malafides are attributed to
any one of them. Now that the mistakes pointed out in the
CID report have been corrected by redoing the
moderation/scaling as directed by the High Court all that
can be said is, if these officials were little more diligent and
careful, they could have avoided these mistakes. But it
cannot be said that they deliberately violated the Court
order. These officials are no more in service. As such we do
not find any justification to continue with the contempt
proceedings and accordingly we drop the same.
197. On 26.03.2014, this Court permitted the KPSC
to proceed with the processing of the aforesaid 94 candidates
by arranging interviews and to complete the processing
within six weeks. Accordingly, after completing the process,
a fresh list was prepared and submitted to this Court in a
sealed cover. This Court by an order dated 11.11.2014
directed web-hosting of the said list in the website of the
KPSC on 12.11.2014.
- 364 -
198. In the affidavit filed on 19.03.2006, in para 3,
the procedure followed by the KPSC in the re-moderation
and scaling undertaking is set out as under:
(a) Moderation and scaling was directed
to be carried out by the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka by its order dated
– passed in W.P.Nos.12548-589/2002
and connected matters only in respect
of the subjects where the marks
awarded by the Head Examiners (HE)
and Chief Examiners (CE) were
quashed. Hence, Moderation and
Scaling has been confined to the said
subjects.
(b) The Moderation and Scaling carried
out prior to the publication of the Final
Select List dated 28-02-2006 is
referred to as ‘First Moderation’ and
the Moderation and Scaling
undertaken by the Commission is
referred to as ‘Re-moderation.’
(c) The first step involved was
crosschecking of the marks entered in
- 365 -
the computer database paper-wise
and examiner-wise in order to tabulate
the original examiner marks and
discard the HE/CE marks.
(d) In the process of first moderation
examiner-wise and paper-wise 10%
answer scripts (5% top and 5%
random) were already picked out for
second valuation and valued.
(e) The said second valuation marks of
the 10% answer scripts picked out are
compared with the original examiners
marks to determine the difference
between the two marks. At this stage
it is pertinent to state that in the event
of the HE/CE marks having been
taken into consideration earlier in
respect of the 10% picked-out answer
scripts, there would be change in the
difference of marks from the first
moderation to the re-moderation as the
difference in marks in the re-
moderation is between original
examiner and the second valuation
marks. However, in case of picked-out
scripts, which were not corrected
- 366 -
either by HE or CE or both, then the
difference of marks would remain the
same as in the case of first valuation.
(f) Thereafter, the average variation is
arrived at by adding the difference in
marks in respect of the 10% picked-out
answer scripts divided by the number
of answer scripts picked-out.
(g) If the average variation is more than
(+) or (-) 20 then original examiner
marks of all the scripts examiner is
added or subtracted by such average
variation and the final scaled marks
would be after such addition or
subtraction.
(h) In the event of the average variation
being less (+) of (-) 20 then no addition
or subtraction is necessary and the
original examiner marks have been
retained. However, in individual cases
of picked-out answer scripts if the
difference between the marks
awarded by the original examiner and
second valuation is more than (+) or (-)
such sc are subjected to third
- 367 -
valuation and the marks awarded in
the third valuation is taken as the final
marks.
(i) In the first moderation after arriving at
the average variation, the addition or
subtraction was carried out by using
HE/CE marks, where HE/CE had
evaluated the scripts. However, in
case of scripts evaluated only by
original examiner, even in the first
valuation the addition and subtraction
was only from the original examiner
marks.
(j) It is pertinent to state that the
illustration contained in the CID report
at pages 25 to 38 does not give the
correct scope of correction, in as much
as, the CID has pointed out the fact
that at the stage of addition or
subtraction of the average variation,
the HE and CE marks have been used
instead of original examiner marks.
However, if in case in the first
valuation HE and CE marks were
used for calculating the average
variation (in respect of Picked-out
- 368 -
answer scripts) then in the re-
moderation even the average variation
would undergo a change. CID did not
appreciate this aspect and hence the
calculations given in the CID report in
pages 25 to 36 cannot be used in order
to determine the correct difference of
marks on re-moderation.”
199. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel
Sri.S.Vijayshankar proceeds on the assumption that the
KPSC has no power to alter the final list once it is submitted
to the Government, as it becomes functus officio. The fact
set out above clearly demonstrates that it is not a suo motto
revision of the select list by the KPSC. The material on
record clearly demonstrates that the proceedings were
initiated challenging the final list on the ground of fraud and
grave illegality perpetuated at the stage of evaluation of the
answer scripts and at the time of personality test. The
Enquiry Report of the CID, fully supports the said view. The
KPSC has admitted the finding in the CID report that the
annulled marks awarded by the Head/Chief-Examiners have
- 369 -
been taken into consideration for the purpose of moderation
and scaling, which is contrary to the order dated 11.10.2002
passed in W.P. Nos. 12548-589/2002. The KPSC Member of
the Fact Finding Committee has observed that to what
extent the said error would tilt the marks and ultimately, the
results would have to be worked out by the KPSC will be
known only after redoing all the exercise of moderation and
scaling by taking into consideration the marks awarded by
the original examiners.
200. It is in those circumstances, on verification of
the records, KPSC was convinced that the said irregularities
are correct and in view of the earlier order of this Court
directing re-examination and how moderation/scaling is to
be done and if the KPSC had not undertaken this revision, it
would have amounted to abdication of its duties and also
amounting to contempt of the court order. Though the
candidates who took the written examination and
personality test may not have any role to play in these
illegalities/discrepancies, a Constitutional Authority like
KPSC has to conduct itself in a fair and reasonable manner.
- 370 -
That is how the KPSC undertook this exercise and it cannot
be found fault with. This Court having monitored this case,
which is the cause for revision of the selected list, cannot be
silent spectator and gloss over the matter. The candidates,
who had merit and who were denied an opportunity to
participate in the personality test are now permitted to
participate in the selection process. Persons, who did not
have the requisite merit were permitted to participate in the
selection process, which is illegal. Therefore the said revised
list is to be upheld and given effect to. Merely because years
have elapsed is not a reason for not upholding the revised
list. The law of adverse possession is not attracted to service
matters. The petitioners are agitating the matter in different
forum. The appointments made is always subject to the
result of the pending proceedings. Therefore the contention
that delay and laches stares on the face and the writ petition
is liable to be dismissed on that ground, lacks merit and
accordingly rejected.
- 371 -
201. Though the successful parties were not parties
to the earlier proceedings, after the preparation of the
revised list and its web-hosting, all of them are added as
parties and all of them are now represented and they have
been heard. It is only when this Court directs the
implementation of the revised list, successful candidates
would be hurt. That is why they have been heard. Therefore
the principles of natural justice is complied with. The KPSC
in their affidavit has clearly set out the procedure that is
followed in the process of moderation/scaling. It is also in
accordance with the direction issued by the High Court in its
order by way of illustration. The said affidavit is made
available to all the respondents. No one has pointed out any
error or mistake in the process.
202. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel. The revised
selection list of the post of gazetted officers prepared, of
1998 batch is valid and consequently, it has to be given
effect to.
- 372 -
POINT NO.3 - VALUATION OF MORE THAN 10% OF THE
ANSWER SCRIPT
203. Sri Vikram Phadke, learned Counsel for the
petitioners contended that in the earlier proceedings, this
Court had clearly set out how moderation/scaling is to be
done in respect of 18 subjects. It is in pursuance of the said
direction in the said proceedings, the marks given by head
examiner and chief examiner were all set aside and a
direction was issued to take 5% of the top level and another
5% random of the answer scripts and not less than 10% for
total answer scripts for moderation. KPSC has conducted
the moderation of more than 10% but they have not taken
into consideration the marks secured in the said moderation
of all the papers, so revalued. They have confined only to
10% which is a patent illegality and violation of the direction
issued by this Court and confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Infact, in the Supreme Court judgment, it is expressly
stated that minimum is 10% and it is open for them to value
more than 10% of those revalued paper and marks taken
into consideration. Therefore, direction has to be issued with
- 373 -
regard to percentage of papers above 10% which is excluded
from moderation by the KPSC in preparing the list.
204. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the KPSC
contended that 91 answer scripts were in excess of 10% and
therefore they are not taken into consideration. Admittedly,
the same was taken into consideration. The explanation
offered is, this 91 answer scripts is in excess of 10%
prescribed and therefore, KPSC was not bound to take the
third valuation marks. In these 91 papers, for two students,
none of the marks secured by them in the third valuation is
given. The reason is, i.e., scaling of marks and that
explanation by the KPSC appears to be correct.
205. In the order of the High Court dated 11th
October, 2002 in W.P. No.12548-589/2002 at para 35, this
Court observed as under;
“The large variation in the figures earlier
furnished and subsequently modified, as to the
answer scripts that were moderated raises a
doubt about the actual number of answer scripts
reviewed by Head Examiners and Chief
Examiners. Be that as it may. In spite of the
- 374 -
above, moderation was restricted only to the
answer scripts which were reviewed by the
Head/Chief Examiners and no effort was made to
adopt the scaling technique of moderation by
applying an upward or downward revision to all
the answer scripts evaluated by the respective
examiners. Further, in regard to most of those
subjects the random preview was not done to the
extent suggested in the guidelines (5% of top level
answer scripts and over all random review of
10%). No minutes or record has also been
maintained to show whether moderation was
done by the Head Examiners/Chief Examiners in
the manner required by the guidelines. They (the
answer scripts in the above subjects), therefore
require proper review. KPSC having realized the
inadequacies/irregularities has now agreed to do
the moderation by applying scaling Technique (as
stated its memo dated 27.-3-2002 filed on 22-7-
2002).”
206. The said order has been confirmed by the Apex
Court and the relevant observation of the Supreme Court in
this regard is contained at page 39 as under:
“The submission that the guidelines earlier
provided only for a random review to the extent of
- 375 -
5 to 10% which has now been increased to 20%,
is based on a factually wrong assumption. The
High Court in paragraph 35 of its judgment has
noticed that the random review prescribed under
the guidelines was to be done in respect of 5% of
top level answer scripts and 10% over all random
review. Even the memo filed by the Karnataka
Public Service Commission and accepted by the
High Court assured that whenever random review
done by the Head Examiner was less than 10% of
the answer scripts evaluated by any examiner in
any subject, the shortfall would be made up
examiner-wise and subject-wise by random
review of answer scripts to the extent of shortfall.
While doing so it will be ensured that random
sampling was not be less than 5% of the top level
answer scripts. We have therefore, no doubt that
the direction of the High Court has not deviated
from the guidelines. Moreover, 5% or 10% as
the case may be is the minimum required
percentage of random review. It can always
be more than the minimum prescribed.”
207. As per the order of the High Court in W.P. Nos.
12549-589/2002, for the purpose of moderation, answer
scripts had to be picked in the following manner:
- 376 -
(a) 10% of the answer scripts in the subjects
subjected to moderation had to be picked up.
(b) After this 10%, 5% of the answer scripts were
to be the top level answer scripts and the rest
of the 5% is to be picked up randomly.
208. The report of the Committee constituted by the
High Court discloses that in many cases, the top 5% of the
answer scripts were not taken. In fact in the report, a table
showing the top 5% of the answer scripts not picked up for
moderation is clearly set out. Table-A4 of the report of the
Fact Finding Committee sets out cases where marks of Third
Valuation not taken as final marks with regard to the
selected candidates mentioned therein and according to the
petitioner thus selected candidates are benefited by this
lapse. In Table-A5, they have set out the instances wherein
although the average variation is not more than plus or
minus twenty, the marks awarded by the examiner was not
retained, but marks, which would benefit the candidate was
considered as final marks. Therefore, it is contended that
the KPSC has not complied with the order of this Court, even
in this aspect of moderation, resulting in tilting of the
- 377 -
average variation and thereby tilting of total marks which
has vitiated the process.
209. The KPSC member, though did not dispute the
figures in the said tabulated statement has observed that in
case of some candidates, less marks have been taken into
consideration and in some cases, more marks have been
taken into consideration. The difference is marginal.
210. From the aforesaid material it is clear that the
order dated 11.10.2002 in W.P.No.12548-589/2002 at
paragraph 35, directed for a random review to the extent of
10%, i.e., 5% top level answer scripts and over all random
review of 10%. This is the minimum the KPSC was expected
to do. The Apex Court while confirming this order of the
High Court held that 5% or 10% as the case may be is the
minimum required percentage of random review. It can
always be more than the minimum prescribed.
211. Now, it is not in dispute that more than 10%
prescribed answer scripts have been subjected to
- 378 -
moderation. In all, it amounts to 91 papers. The petitioners
rely on the report of the Committee formed by the High
Court pointing out how the marks secured in the third
valuation in respect of these 91 papers has not been given
effect to. KPSC admits the said fact. Their contention is
that they could not have reviewed more than 10% of the
answer scripts and therefore these 91 answer scripts which
is above 10% prescribed is not given effect to. Once random
review is ordered for, review is conducted and there is large
scale discrepancy, the KPSC was bound to comply with the
directions issued by the High Court as affirmed by the
Supreme Court, even in respect of these 91 papers. Their
failure to do so is illegal and contrary to the directions
issued by the Apex Court. They ought to have given effect to
the marks secured in the third valuation and found out
whether it has any bearing on the final list prepared by
them.
212. Under these circumstances, we are of the view
that the KPSC has not taken into consideration the marks
- 379 -
secured in 3rd valuation in respect of these 91 answer scripts
and have not given effect to the order of the High Court to
the same in the preparation of the merit list. It is pertinent
to point out at this stage that, the Court summoned all these
91 answer scripts. It was kept in the open Court for
inspection by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties
as well as parties by themselves and it is only after giving
such an opportunity, when nobody pointed out any illegality
or irregularity in the said valuation, we have proceeded to
pass this order. Even now, if there is any irregularity or
illegality in any individual case and if by giving effect to the
third valuation, if their position is going to be affected, they
are at liberty to approach the Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal for redressal of their grievances.
213. In that view of the matter, we direct the KPSC to
take into consideration the marks secured in third valuation
in respect of these 91 answer scripts, give effect to the same
in terms of the High Court order within two months from the
date of receipt of the copy of this order.
- 380 -
POINT NO.4 - DESTRUCTION OF ANSWER SCRIPTS IN
1999 BATCH
214. The selection of 1999 batch was challenged
firstly, on the ground that KPSC has not made known the
basis for evaluation. They have not prepared any model
answer scripts so that the evaluators would look into the
same and bring in some uniformity in the matter of
evaluation. On the contrary there is total arbitrariness in
the process of evaluation. In fact, in some cases, second
valuation and third valuation is done. In respect of some
other papers only one valuation is done. Therefore, the same
set of rules prescribed by the KPSC is not followed in
evaluating these answer scripts. The system of introducing
second and third valuation is arbitrary. In fact, the same
also has been done on selective basis and, therefore, the
entire process of valuation is without any basis, arbitrary
and contrary to the process evolved by the KPSC itself. On
9.7.2005 when these selection of 1999 batch was under
challenge before the Tribunal, an interim order was passed
staying the selection process. However, an application was
- 381 -
filed by the KPSC for permission to publish a provisional list
which was granted on 27.9.2005. Subsequently, on
25.10.2005 KPSC was permitted to publish the list subject to
the result of the application. Therefore, when the selection
process was under challenge it is by virtue of the interim
orders granted, provisional list and final list was published,
the KPSC could not have destroyed the answer scripts. It is
done with a mala fide intention. Therefore, adverse inference
is to be drawn.
215. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Vikram
Phadke relied on the following judgments in support of his
contentions:
216. In the case of KRISHAN YADAV vs STATE OF
HARYANA reported in (1994) 4 SCC 165, held as under:-
“It is somewhat surprising the High Court should
have taken the path of least Resistance stating, in
view of the destruction of records, that it was
helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not
that powerless.
- 382 -
20. In the above circumstances, what are we to
do? The only proper course open to us is to set
aside the entire selection. The plea was made that
innocent candidates should not be penalised for
the misdeeds of others. We are unable to accept
this argument. When the entire selection is
stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in
deceit, individual innocence has no place as
"fraud unravels everything". To put it in other
words, the entire selection is arbitrary. It is that
which is faulted and not the individual
candidates. Accordingly we hereby set aside the
selection of Taxation Inspectors.
21. The effect of setting aside the selection
would mean the appointments held by these 96
candidates (including the respondents) will have
no right to go to the office. Normally speaking, we
should require them to disgorge the benefit of
these illgotten gains. That means they will have to
repay the entire salary and perks which they
have received from the said office. But, here we
show a streak of sympathy. For more than 4
years they were enjoying the benefit of "office".
The proper lesson would be learnt by them if their
- 383 -
appointments are set aside teaching them that
dishonesty could never pay.”
217. In the case of PRITPAL SINGH vs STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (1994) 5 SCC 695, the
Supreme Court held as under : -
11. As aforestated, the answer papers of
the written examinations were destroyed
even before the results of the selection had
been declared. The resolution which has
been quoted above states that the Board
had decided to destroy the answer papers
as there was no space to keep them in the
Board's office. There was a shortage of
space because invitations for applications
for various posts had been issued and
space was badly needed for keeping the
same. In reply to our query, the learned
Solicitor General fairly stated that there
was no such shortage of space. In any
event, what is noteworthy about the
resolution is its last sentence, which we
have emphasised. So great was the haste to
destroy the answer papers that the
- 384 -
destruction was already complete when the
resolution was passed. The shortage of
space could not have been so acutely felt so
suddenly and the explanation contained in
the resolution does not explain or justify the
tearing hurry. The explanation is, therefore,
suspect.
12. The answer papers having been
destroyed, it becomes impossible to
ascertain what marks each candidate had
secured from the examiners upon the
answer papers themselves. Ordinarily, the
examiners would have themselves
tabulated the marks given by them against
the serial numbers or names of the
candidates whose answer papers they had
examined. No such tabulation has been
produced by the Board. There were four
written papers. The Board would, in any
event, have had to tabulate the marks
obtained by each candidate in each of the
four papers and aggregate the same for the
purposes of ascertaining which of the
candidates had obtained the qualifying
marks or more. No such tabulation has been
produced by the Board. The resolution of
- 385 -
the Board authorising payment to the
examiners shows that there were 13 of
them. There were four written papers. In
each subject, therefore, there were more
than one examiner and the answer papers
of the candidates were distributed amongst
them. Ordinarily, there would be a
moderation of the marks given by two or
more examiners in the same subject so as to
ensure that one had not been too strict and
other too lenient. No papers in this behalf
have been produced by the Board.
13. Much paper pertaining to the physical
statistics of the candidates declared to be
successful at the written examination has
been preserved by the Board and produced.
That it has been preserved but no other
documentation is noteworthy; a candidate's
height would remain ascertainable so long
as he was alive.
14. From the record produced by the Board
it appears that very large sheets of paper
with the names of the candidates and their
qualifications, etc., typed thereon were
placed before the members of the Board
who interviewed them. Upon these sheets of
- 386 -
paper there are large blanks, in that no
notation has been made with regard to
many candidates one after the other in
serial order. Such notations as there are in
pencil and they do not always indicate how
the candidates had fared. Along with these
very large sheets of paper there is a small
strip of paper relating to the only candidate
who, for some reason, was interviewed on
3-9-1989. This strip of paper shows the
final assessment of the candidate at the
interview. There is no corresponding
tabulation produced in respect of the
candidates who appeared on the earlier
dates of interviews. In other words, there is
no tabulation of the final marks awarded to
these candidates at the interview.
19. It is in the public interest that members
of the police force should be selected
objectively and fairly. The factors that we
have enumerated above satisfy us that the
selection made by the Board was not
objective and fair. It is, therefore, in the
public interest that the selections and the
appointments made consequent thereon be
quashed forthwith.
- 387 -
20. We appreciate that it may be that there
are among those selected some who
deserved selection and who will,
consequently, suffer as a result of this
order. There is, regrettably, considering the
state of the selection records, no way in
which such men can be identified. The
public interest outweighs their interest. The
directions that we shall now give shall
enable them to compete once again with
those who had sought selection with little or
no disadvantages a result of the years that
have passed.
21. The appeals are allowed. The orders of
the Division Benches under appeal and the
judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge dismissing the writ petitions are set
aside. The writ petitions are made absolute
in the following terms: The selections made
by the Board of Sub- Inspectors of Police
consequent upon the advertisement dated
21-1-1988, as also the appointments made
by the State of Haryana pursuant thereto
are quashed.
22. A fresh selection shall be made by the
Board for the 98 posts of SubInspectors of
- 388 -
Police for which the Board had at the
relevant time received requisitions from the
State Government. All candidates who had
applied pursuant to the advertisement
dated 21-1-1988, and who were found
eligible shall be entitled to appear for the
written examinations, the total marks
whereof shall be 200. Those who are
successful shall then appear for a physical
test. Having regard to the fact that the
candidates are now around the age of 30,
the Inspector General of Police of the State
of Haryana or an officer of equivalent rank
shall, having regard to this age, prescribe
appropriate physical requirements. Those
candidates who are found to possess these
physical requirements shall be called for
interview, the marks whereof shall be 25.
Candidates who are successful at the
interview shall be required to submit to
physical tests, namely, two races and two
jumps, the particulars of which shall also be
prescribed by the Inspector General of
Police or equivalent authority having regard
to the age aforesaid.”
- 389 -
218. Again the Apex Court in the case of POONAM
RANI ALIAS POONAM vs STATE OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER reported in (2012) 6 SCC 596 held as under : -
18. The affidavit filed by the
Secretary of the Commission before this Court
clearly shows that within few days of
declaration of the result of the selection, the
officers of the Commission destroyed the
answer sheets of the written examination held
in June, 2008. This was done in blatant
violation of Resolution dated 1.10.1994, in
terms of which the answer sheets could be
destroyed after three months from the date of
declaration of the result of the selection. The
statement contained in paragraph 12 of
application dated 14.3.2012 filed on behalf of
the Commission is reflective of the casualness
with which the officers of the Commission
have treated the issue of destruction of the
most important record, i.e., the answer sheets
of the candidates which constituted
foundation of the final selection.
- 390 -
23. In the result, the appeal is allowed
and the impugned judgment as also the order
passed by the learned Single Judge are set
aside. The Commission is directed to hold
fresh written test and interview for
considering the candidature of the appellant
and other unsuccessful candidates after
giving them due intimation about the date,
time and place of the examination and
interview. This exercise should be completed
within a period of four months from the date
of receipt/production of this order. The
candidates who are selected on the basis of
the exercise undertaken pursuant to this
direction shall become entitled to be appointed
against the vacancies which may be available
on the date of finalisation of the selection. The
parties are left to bear their own costs.
219. He therefore contended that this conduct of the
KPSC should be sufficient to set aside the entire selection
process and order for re-examination.
220. In Krishan Yadav’s case, the selection was
made without holding interview; they were ghost interviews;
- 391 -
there was tampering of the final records and forgery and
fabrication of documents. It was fake. It is in that context
when the records were destroyed, the Apex Court held that
when the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and
delivered in deceit, the entire selection is liable to be set-
aside. In Pritpal Singh’s case, the answer papers of the
written examinations were destroyed even before the results
of the selection had been declared. In Poonam Rani’s case
the answer sheets of the written examination were destroyed
in violation of the resolution dated 01.10.1984 in terms of
which, the answer sheets could be destroyed after three
months from the date of declaration of the result of the
election.
221. The said decisions have no application to the
facts of this case because it is not in dispute that the KPSC
has destroyed the answer scripts. It was done after expiry of
six months period stipulated under the Rules. In respect of
matters which are pending in the Court, in terms of the
Rules, those answer scripts are preserved. It is also not in
dispute that number of applications are pending before the
- 392 -
Administrative Tribunal challenging the selection of
candidates in the 1999 batch. The KPSC could have
preserved these answer scripts in view of the aforesaid
litigation. But they have chosen to destroy the same.
However, the evaluation of the answer scripts itself was not
under challenge. In the absence of any material placed on
record to show that this is done deliberately with a malafide
intention to benefit a particular number of candidates, the
case of malafides remains unsubstantiated. Therefore, in
the facts of this case, we are satisfied that on that ground it
would not be proper for us to set aside the entire selection of
1999 batch, as candidates who are selected are in no way
responsible for such destruction. Similarly, there is no
substance in the contention that model answer scripts were
not prepared. So also the allegation that the system of
introducing second and third valuation is arbitrary. There is
no material to substantiate the said contentions.
Accordingly, we reject the same. Therefore, we do not find
any merit in the said contention.
- 393 -
POINT NO.5 – PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
222. Sri P.S.Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the KPSC contended that these writ petitions
purporting to be in the nature of Public Interest Litigation
are not maintainable for the following reasons:
a) It is well settled law that no Public Interest Litigation is
maintainable in service matters;
b) The pleadings in the writ petitions disclose that the
petitioners are trying to expose their individual
grievances and not grievances of the public;
c) If the writ petition is filed in personal interest, at a
later stage, it cannot be converted into a Public
Interest Litigation. Personal Interest and Public
Interest cannot co-exist; and lastly
d) The present writ petition is not a class action. A
number of candidates who are unsuccessful in the
selection process have brought this writ petition
seeking for annulment of the selection. Therefore, it is
- 394 -
not a public interest litigation. It is purely academic in
nature and the Court should not embark upon such
exercises.
e) Though an order is passed for investigation, the
Government accepted the same, entrusted the
investigation to CIB and the Court passed an order
appointing a Fact Finding Committee to look into the
irregularities in selection process.
f) The petitioners’ application before the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal is still pending and the
questions raised in these writ petitions are also raised
in the said proceedings and this Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions when the
application filed by the applicants are yet to be decided
by the Tribunal and there cannot be any parallel
proceedings regarding the same subject matter and
the Tribunal being the Court of First Instance has
ample power to decide all these questions.
- 395 -
223. Though KPSC was present in Court, it was not
heard. Writ Petition is yet to be admitted. The limited role
expected by the KPSC is to provide all records and therefore,
he contends that now that the matter is being heard finally,
it is open to the KPSC to point out that the very writ petition
itself is not maintainable and the order passed is without
hearing it, which is against the principles of natural justice
and it does not bind them to any extent whatsoever and
merely because it is not challenged, that would create no
interest in favour of the petitioners or adversely affect the
interest of the KPSC. In support of his contentions, he relied
upon several judgments of the Apex Court, in particularly,
judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the
case of A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and Another reported in
1988(2) SCC 602.
224. The learned counsel appearing for the other
respondents adopted the said submissions and contended
that this writ petition is not maintainable.
- 396 -
225. Sri Vikram Phadke, learned counsel for
the petitioner contended that a private interest litigation can
be converted into a public interest litigation, if there is a
necessity to enquire into the State of Affairs of the subject
‘litigation’ in the interest of justice. In the instant case, the
petitioners have made it very clear that they are not seeking
any relief to them personally, though they had initiated
proceedings earlier, for such personal relief in KAT. In this
writ petition, they are challenging the process of selection
followed by the KPSC, which is unconstitutional. They are
challenging in this writ petition the moderation and scaling
done in respect of the evaluation of answer scripts, which is
arbitrary and again offensive of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Therefore, it is not a private interest litigation,
but a public interest litigation.
226. Before we proceed to answer this question,
it is necessary to know the meaning of a public interest
litigation.
- 397 -
Definition of Public Interest Litigation:
227. Public Interest Litigation has been defined in the
Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition) as under:-
"Public Interest - Something in which
the public, the community at large, has
some pecuniary interest, or some interest by
which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected. It does not mean anything so
narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests
of the particular localities, which may be
affected by the matters in question. Interest
shared by citizens generally in affairs of
local, state or national government...."
228. Advanced Law Lexicon has defined `Public
Interest Litigation' as under:-
"The expression `PIL' means a legal
action initiated in a Court of law for the
enforcement of public interest or general
interest in which the public or a class of
the community has pecuniary interest or
some interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected."
- 398 -
229. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by
the Ford Foundation in USA defined "public interest
litigation" in its report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as
follows:
"10………Public Interest Law is the
name that has recently been given to
efforts provide legal representation to
previously unrepresented groups and
interests. Such efforts have been
undertaken in the recognition that ordinary
market place for legal services fails to
provide such services to significant
segments of the population and to
significant interests. Such groups and
interests include the proper
environmentalists, consumers, racial and
ethnic minorities and others." (M/s Holicow
Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra
& Ors. - AIR 2008 SC 913, para 19).
230. The expression `PIL' means a legal action
initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public
interest. Public interest litigation is part of the process of
participative justice. It is an interest shared by citizens
- 399 -
generally in affairs of local, State or National Government.
The probity in governance is a sine qua non for an efficient
system of administration and for the development of the
country and an important requirement for ensuring probity
in governance is the absence of corruption. It is trite that the
holders of public offices are entrusted with certain power to
be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office
is held by them in trust for the people. The judiciary can step
in where it finds the actions on the part of the Legislature or
the Executive to be illegal or unconstitutional. It is the
bounden duty and obligation of the Courts to encourage
genuine bonafide PIL petitions and pass directions and
orders in the public interest, which are in consonance with
the Constitution and the Laws. The technique of public
interest litigation serves to provide an effective remedy to
enforce these group-rights and interests.
231. Public interest litigation is a weapon, which has
to be used with great care and circumspection and the
judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the
- 400 -
beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested
interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be
used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for
delivering social justice to the citizens. It should be aimed at
redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not
publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. The
Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a
member of the public, who approaches the court is acting
bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or
political motivation or other oblique consideration.
232. Again, the relief to be granted looks to the future
and is, generally, corrective rather than compensatory
which, sometimes, it also is. The court is not merely a
passive, disinterested umpire or onlooker, but has a more
dynamic and positive role with the responsibility for the
organization of the proceedings, moulding of the relief and –
this is important – also supervising the implementation
thereof.
- 401 -
233. The main ground urged is that no public interest
litigation is maintainable in respect of service matters. In
support of that contention, reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DR. DURYODHAN
SAHU AND OTHERS Vs. JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND
OTHERS reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 in which, the Apex
Court dealing with the question whether a Tribunal
constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
could entertain a public interest litigation has held as under:
“18. The constitution of Administrative
Tribunals was necessitated because of the
large pendency of cases relating to service
matters in various courts in the country. It
was expected that the setting up of
Administrative Tribunals to deal exclusively
in service matters would go a long way in
not only reducing the burden of the Courts
but also provide to the persons covered by
the Tribunals speedy relief in respect of their
grievances. The basic idea as evident from
the various provisions of the Act is that the
Tribunal should quickly redress the
grievances in relation to service matters. The
- 402 -
definition of 'service matters' found in Section
3(q) shows that in relation to a person the
expression means all service matters relating
to the conditions of his service. The
significance of the word 'his' cannot be
ignored. Section 3(b) defines the word
'application' as an application made under
Section 19. The latter Section refers to
'person aggrieved'. In order to bring a matter
before the Tribunal, an application has to be
made and the same can be made only by a
person aggrieved by any order pertaining to
any matter within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal. We have already seen that the
word 'order' has been defined in the
explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 19
so that all matters referred to in Section 3(q)
as service matters could be brought before
the Tribunal. If in that context, Sections 14
and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a
total stranger to the service concerned
cannot make an application before the
Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the
instance of strangers are allowed to be
entertained by the Tribunal, the very object
of speedy disposal of service matters would
get defeated.
- 403 -
19. Our attention has been drawn to a
judgment of the Orissa Administrative
Tribunal in Smt. Amitarani Khuntia vs State
of Orissa. The Tribunal after considering the
provisions of the Act held that a private
citizen or a stranger having no existing right
to any post and not intrinsically concerned
with any service matter is not entitled to
approach the Tribunal. The following
passage in the judgment is relevant: :
"....A reading of the aforesaid provisions
would mean that an application for redressal
of grievances could be filed only by a 'person
aggrieved' within the meaning of the Act.
Tribunals are constituted under Article
323-A of the Constitution of India. The above
Article empowers the Parliament to enact
law providing for adjudication or trial by
Administrative Tribunals of disputes and
complaints with respect to recruitment and
conditions of service of persons appointed to
public services and posts in connection with
the affairs of the Union or of any State or
any local or other authority within the
territory of India or under the control of the
Government of India or of any corporation
- 404 -
owned or controlled by the Government and
such law shall specify the jurisdiction,
powers and authority which may be
exercised by each of the said Tribunals.
Thus, it follows that Administrative
Tribunals are constituted for adjudication or
trial of the disputes and complaints with
respect to recruitment and conditions of
service of persons appointed to public
services and posts. Its jurisdiction and
powers have been well defined in the Act. It
does not enjoy any plenary power."
We agree with the above reasoning.
21. In the result, we answer the first
question in the negative and hold that the
Administrative Tribunal constituted under
the Act cannot entertain a public interest
litigation at the instance of a total stranger.
234. The Apex Court in the case of B.SRINIVASA
REDDY Vs. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY &
DRAINAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION reported in
(2006) 11 SCC 731 (I) has held as under:
- 405 -
51. It is settled law by a catena of
decisions that Court cannot sit in judgment
over the wisdom of the Government in the
choice of the person to be appointed so long as
the person chosen possesses prescribed
qualification and is otherwise eligible for
appointment. This Court in R.K. Jain vs. Union
of India, was pleased to hold that the
evaluation of the comparative merits of the
candidates would not be gone into a public
interest litigation and only in a proceeding
initiated by an aggrieved person, it may be
open to be considered. It was also held that in
service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is
for the aggrieved person that is the non-
appointee to assail the legality or correctness of
the action and that third party has no locus
standi to canvass the legality or correctness of
the action. Further, it was declared that only
public law declaration would only be made at
the behest of public-spirited person coming
before the Court as a petitioner having regard
to the fact that the neither respondent Nos.1
and 2 were or could have been candidates for
the post of Managing Director of the Board and
the High Court could not have gone beyond the
limits of Quo Warranto so very well delineated
- 406 -
by a catena of decisions of this Court and
applied the test which could not have been
applied even in a certiorari proceedings brought
before the Court by an aggrieved party who
was a candidate for the post.
235. The Apex Court in the case of DATTARAJ
NATHUJI THAWARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &
OTHERS reported in (2005) 1 SCC 590 held as under:
16. As noted supra, a time has come to
weed out the petitions, which though titled as
public interest litigations are in essence
something else. It is shocking to note that Courts
are flooded with large number of so called public
interest litigations where even a minuscule
percentage can legitimately be called as public
interest litigations. Though the parameters of
public interest litigation have been indicated by
this Court in large number of cases, yet
unmindful of the real intentions and objectives,
Courts are entertaining such petitions and
wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted
above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of
genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.)
v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, this Court held that in
- 407 -
service matters PILs should not be entertained,
the inflow of so called PILs involving service
matters continues unabated in the Courts and
strangely are entertained. The least the High
Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis
of the said decision. The other interesting aspect
is that in the PILs, official documents are being
annexed without even indicating as to how the
petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it
was noticed that an interesting answer was given
as to its possession. It was stated that a packet
was lying on the road and when out of curiosity
the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the
official documents. Apart from the sinister
manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real
brain or force behind such cases would get
exposed to find out the truth and motive behind
the petition. Whenever such frivolous pleas, as
noted, are taken to explain possession, the Court
should do well not only to dismiss the petitions
but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be
desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous
petitions and dismiss them with costs as
aforestated so that the message goes in the right
direction that petitions filed with oblique motive
do not have the approval of the Courts.
- 408 -
236. The Apex Court in the case of HARI BANSH LAL
Vs. SAHODAR PRASAD MAHTO reported in (2010) 9 SCC
655 has held as under:
11. About maintainability of the Public
Interest Litigation in service matters except for a
writ of quo warranto, there are series of decisions
of this Court laying down the principles to be
followed. It is not seriously contended that the
matter in issue is not a service matter. In fact,
such objection was not raised and agitated before
the High Court. Even otherwise, in view of the
fact that the appellant herein was initially
appointed and served in the State Electricity
Board as a Member in terms of Section 5(4) and
from among the Members of the Board,
considering the qualifications specified in sub-
Section (4), the State Government, after getting a
report from the vigilance department, appointed
him as Chairman of the Board, it is impermissible
to claim that the issue cannot be agitated under
service jurisprudence.
15. The above principles make it clear
that except for a writ of quo warranto, Public
Interest Litigation is not maintainable in service
matters.
- 409 -
237. The Apex Court in the case of ASHOK KUMAR
PANDEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in (2004)
3 SCC 349 has held as under:
16. As noted supra, a time has come
to weed out the petitions, which though titled
as public interest litigations are in essence
something else. It is shocking to note that
Courts are flooded with large number of so
called public interest litigations where even a
minuscule percentage can legitimately be
called as public interest litigations. Though the
parameters of public interest litigation have
been indicated by this Court in large number of
cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and
objectives, Courts are entertaining such
petitions and wasting valuable judicial time
which, as noted above, could be otherwise
utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though
in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar
Mishra and Others (AIR 1999 SC 114), this
Court held that in service matters PILs should
not be entertained, the inflow of so called PILs
involving service matters continues unabated
in the Courts and strangely are entertained.
The least the High Courts could do is to throw
- 410 -
them out on the basis of the said decision. The
other interesting aspect is that in the PILs,
official documents are being annexed without
even indicating as to how the petitioner came
to possess them. In one case, it was noticed
that an interesting answer was given as to its
possession. It was stated that a packet was
lying on the road and when out of curiosity the
petitioner opened it, he found copies of the
official documents. Whenever such frivolous
pleas are taken to explain possession, the
Court should do well not only to dismiss the
petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It
would be desirable for the Courts to filter out
the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with
costs as aforestated so that the message goes
in the right direction that petitions filed with
oblique motive do not have the approval of the
Courts.
238. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we have to
find out what is a ‘service matter’.
239. The word `service matter’ is defined under
Section 3(q) in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as
under:
- 411 -
(q) “service matters”, in relation to a person,
means all matters relating to the conditions of his
service in connection with the affairs of the Union
or of any State or of any local or other authority
within the territory of India or under the control of
the Government of India, or, as the case may be,
of any corporation or society owned or controlled
by the Government, as respect –
(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;
(ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, revision, premature retirement and superannuation;
(iii) leave of any kind;
(iv) disciplinary matters; or
(v) any other matter whatsoever;
240. The persons, who have preferred this writ
petition are persons, who participated in the recruitment
process and who are unsuccessful. For individual reliefs,
they have approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and
the matter is pending. What is adjudicated in this writ
petition is, the illegality committed by the KPSC in the
recruitment process and violations of the orders passed by
- 412 -
this Court in the earlier proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the petitioners are total strangers to these
proceedings and that writ petition is not maintainable.
Similarly, as the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal has no
plenary power and a public interest litigation is not
maintainable before it, these interested persons rightly have
approached this Court and have invoked the plenary power
of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
They are not seeking any personal relief. They are not
seeking any relief in respect of matters relating to the
conditions of their service.
241. The subject matter of this writ petition is the
procedure followed by the KPSC in preparing the list of
candidates to be admitted to the written examination and
the list of candidates to be called for the personality test. It
is not a matter relating to the conditions of service of the
petitioners. Similarly the list of successful candidates
prepared by K.P.S.C. taking into consideration the annulled
marks by this Court in its order and subsequent preparation
of list in terms of the court order after C.I.D. Report pointed
- 413 -
out the said mistake also cannot be construed as matter
relating to the conditions of service of the petitioner.
Further, the refusal on the part of the K.P.S.C. to re do the
same exercise in respect of 91 answer scripts on the ground
that it falls over and above the 10% mark prescribed by the
Court, also do not constitute a matter relating to the
conditions of service of the petitioner. A Constitutional
authority like the K.P.S.C., which has been entrusted with
the function of recruitment to civil services and for civil
posts, acts in an unconstitutional manner in conducting the
examination for such appointments, which in turn affect the
public interest, it is only through a public interest litigation
the unconstitutional acts could be corrected. It is not a
service matter as defined under the Act. It is not a matter
relating to the conditions of service of the petitioners
242. In Dr.Duryodhan Sahu’s case, the question for
consideration was, “whether a public interest litigation at the
instance of a total stranger is maintainable before the
Administrative Tribunal?”. The Apex Court in the said case
held that, a total stranger to the service cannot make an
- 414 -
application before the Tribunal. Similarly, it held that the
Tribunals are constituted for adjudication or trial of disputes
and the complaints with respect to recruitment and
conditions of service of persons appointed to Public services
and posts. It does not enjoy any plenary power as enjoyed
by the Constitutional Court under Article 226 or Article 32 of
the Constitution. In B.Srinivasa Reddy’s case what was
challenged was the appointment of the post of Managing
Director by the Labour Union. Therefore, it was held that
they were not the candidates, who are competing for the said
post and therefore, it was held that the writ petition is not
maintainable. In the other cases referred to supra also,
what was canvassed and what was challenged was a private
interest and therefore, rightly, it was held that a public
interest litigation is not maintainable. Therefore, the said
judgments have no application to the facts of this case.
243. In the instant case, what is sought to be exposed
is state of affairs of the K.P.S.C. a constitutional authority
entrusted with the responsibility of conducting examination
for appointment to the service of the State, where a
- 415 -
systematic commission of fraud, deceit and unconstitutional
procedure is followed. The orders passed by this Court
earlier, which is confirmed by the Supreme Court is not
given effect to. The same mistakes are committed in
successive batch of selections. Therefore, the intervention of
the Court has become necessary, in particular, when
shocking disclosures are made by the Committee and C.I.D.
which was asked to enquire into the matter.
244. The Three Man Committee report discloses that,
the Chief Examiner, Prof. K.S.Shivanna moderated three
papers each of Sri K.Rameswarappa, Sri B.S.Nagaraj, Smt.
B.S.Triveni and Smt. B.S.Hemalatha who all belong to the
same family and has increased the marks enormously. As a
result Sri K.Rameswarappa got the first rank,
Sri.B.S.Nagaraj got the second rank, Smt. B.S.Triveni got
the fourth rank and Smt. B.S.Hemalatha was selected as
Tahsildar, though they had not secured marks to enable
them to get selected. Sri K.Rameswarappa and
Smt.B.S.Triveni were given the posting of Assistant
Commissioner and Sri.B.S.Nagaraj was selected as Assistant
- 416 -
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The report also
discloses this was possible because of the connivance
between A.K.Monnappa, the Secretary of the KPSC with the
Chief Examiner. In fact, Prof. K.S.Shivanna was the
Research Guide for the Ph.D programme of Sri
K.Rameswarappa. Further, the report discloses that, after
the examination and evaluation was over, during September
2000 these three persons undertook a joint foreign tour. The
evidence discloses A.K.Monnappa has parted with the code
numbers of the candidates to Prof. K.S.Shivanna and he had
also taken the help of Prof.K.S.Shivanna in substitution of
some of the answer scripts of these four candidates in
question. Accordingly, their candidature were cancelled,
they were debarred from taking the future examination and
criminal proceedings also was initiated.
245. On the contrary, the Supreme Court in the
following judgments has explained the role of Constitutional
Courts when public interest is involved.
- 417 -
246. Per contra, the Apex Court in the case of
SHEELA BARSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
reported in AIR 1988 SC 2211 dealing with the question of
the rights of those who bring the action in lieu of others in
public interest has held as under:
“6. ….. The technique of public interest
litigation serves to provide an effective remedy to
enforce these group-rights and interests. In order
that these public-causes are brought before the
Courts, the procedural techniques judicially
innovated specially for the public interest action
recognizes the concomitant need to lower the
Locus standi thresholds so as to enable public-
minded citizens or social-action-groups to act as
conduits between these classes of persons of
inherence (Sic) and the forum for the assertion
and enforcement of their rights. The dispute is
not comparable to one between private parties
with the result there is no recognition of the
status of a Dominus-Litis for any individual or
group of individuals to determine the course or
destination of the proceedings, except to the
extent recognized and permitted by the Court.
The “rights” of those who bring the action on
behalf of the others must necessarily be
- 418 -
subordinate to the “interests” of those for whose
benefit the action is brought. The grievance in a
public interest action, generally speaking, is
about the content and conduct of governmental
action in relation to the constitutional or statutory
rights of segments of society and in certain
circumstances the conduct of governmental
policies. Necessarily, both the party structure
and the matters in controversy are sprawling and
amorphous, to be defined and adjusted or re-
adjusted as the case may be, ad hoc, according
as the exigencies of the emerging situations. The
proceedings do not partake of pre-determined
private law litigation models but are exogenously
determined by variations of the theme.
Again, the relief to be granted looks to the
future and is, generally, corrective rather than
compensatory which, sometimes, it also is. The
pattern of relief need not necessarily be derived
logically from the rights asserted or found. More
importantly, the court is not merely a passive,
disinterested umpire or onlooker, but has a more
dynamic and positive role with the responsibility
for the organization of the proceedings, moulding
of the relief and – this is important – also
supervising the implementation thereof. The
- 419 -
Court is entitled to, and often does seek the
assistance of expert-panels, Commissioners,
Advisory-committees, Amici etc. This wide range
of the responsibilities necessarily implies
correspondingly higher measure of control over
the parties, the subject-matter and the procedure.
Indeed as the relief is positive and implies
affirmative action the decisions are not “one-shot”
determinations but have on-going implications.
Remedy is both imposed, negotiated or quasi-
negotiated
Therefore, what corresponds to the stage of
final disposal in an ordinary litigation is only a
stage in the proceedings. There is no formal,
declared termination of the proceedings. The
lowering of locus standi threshold does not
involve the recognition or creation of any vested
rights on the part of those who initiate the
proceedings analogus to Dominus Litis”.
247. It is useful to refer to the passages in the case of
SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL Vs. DR. MAHESH
MADHAV GOSAVI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1987 SC
294:
- 420 -
49. …….in a matter of this nature where
public interest was involved namely, state of
affairs in the University of Bombay in respect of a
high degree in the medicine and in which the
conduct of the Chief Minister was involved, public
interest demanded that the High Court should
have investigated the matter even though there
might be some infirmities in the affidavit
supporting the petition. He submitted that in this
case that after the initiation of the proceeding,
public interest was involved and the High Court
was justified in entertaining the application.
51. This Court cannot be oblivious that
there has been a steady decline of public
standards or public morals and public morale. It
is necessary to cleanse public life in this country
along with or even before cleaning the physical
atmosphere. The pollution in our values and
standards is an equally grave menace as the
pollution of the environment. Where such
situations cry out the Courts should not and
cannot remain mute and dumb.
248. Further, the Apex Court in the case of INDIAN
BANK’S ASSOCIATION, BOMBAY AND OTHERS Vs.
- 421 -
DEVKALA CONSULTANCY SERVICE AND OTHERS reported
in 2004 (11) SCC 1 at paragraph 34 has held as under:
“34. Furthermore, even where a writ petition has
been held to be not entertainable on the
ground or otherwise of lack of locus, the
court in larger public interest has
entertained a writ petition. In an
appropriate case, where the petitioner
might have moved a court in his private
interest and for redressal of his personal
grievance, the court in furtherance of public
interest may treat it as a necessity to
enquire into the state of affairs of the
subject of litigation in the interest of justice.
Thus, a private interest case can also be
treated as public interest case.”
249. The Apex Court in the case of NIRMAL SINGH
KAHLON Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS reported in
2009(1) SCC 441 has held as under:
33. The High Court while entertaining the
writ petition formed a prima facie opinion as regards
the systematic commission of fraud. While
dismissing the writ petition filed by the selected
- 422 -
candidates, it initiated a suo motu public interest
litigation. It was entitled to do so. The nature of
jurisdiction exercised by the High Court, as is well
known, in a private interest litigation and in a public
interest litigation is different. Whereas in the latter it
is inquisitorial in nature, in the former it is
adversorial. In a public interest litigation, the court
need not strictly follow the ordinary procedure. It
may not only appoint committees but also issue
directions upon the State from time to time.
36. In an ordinary case, we might have
accepted the submission of Mr. Rao that the High
Court should not direct Central Bureau of
Investigation to investigate into a particular offence.
The offence, however, is not ordinary in nature. It
involved investigation into the allegations of
commission of fraud in a systematic manner. It had
a wide ramification as a former Minister of the State
is said to be involved.
250. Having regard to the aforesaid unimpeachable
evidence found, the irresistible conclusion is fraud has
reached its crescendo. Deeds as foul as these inconceivable
much less could be perpetrated. We are reminded of the
words of Shakespeare:-
- 423 -
"Thus much of this, will make Black, white;
foul, fair; wrong, right; Base, noble; Ha, you gods!
why this?"
251. It may not be too much to draw an inference
that all these were motivated by extraneous considerations.
Each of this would attract the penal provisions of Indian
Penal Code. They have been done with impunity. It is highly
regrettable that the holders of public offices both big and
small have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are
sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse.
The whole examination and the interview have turned out to
be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been
responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience
to come across such a systematic fraud. When the entire
selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in
deceit, individual innocence has no place as fraud unravels
everything.
252. This Court cannot be oblivious that there has
been a steady decline of public standards or public morals
and public morale. It is necessary to cleanse public life in
- 424 -
this country along with or even before cleaning the physical
atmosphere. The pollution in our values and standards is an
equally grave menace as the pollution of the environment.
Where such situations cry out the Courts should not and
cannot remain mute and dumb. In an appropriate case,
where the petitioner might have moved a court in his private
interest and for redressal of his personal grievance, the court
in furtherance of public interest may treat it as a necessity
to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation
in the interest of justice. Thus, a private interest case can
also be treated as public interest case.
253. Public law declaration would be made at the
behest of public spirited person coming before the Court as a
petitioner. If it involves investigation into the allegations of
commission of fraud in a systematic manner, which has a
wide ramification in selection to the post of Gazette
probationers in the State of Karnataka, this Court cannot
adopt the “hands off” attitude. When the K.P.S.C. and State
Government was convinced of fraud, criminal conspiracy,
breach of trust and appointed three-man Commission
- 425 -
K.K.Mishra Committee, Hota Committee and the
Government ordered for C.I.D. enquiry, the dispute ceased to
be a service matter, or of personal interest. It is a matter in
which the public of Karnataka is virtually interested.
Therefore this writ petition is maintainable as it is filed in
public interest and no personal relief is sought for or
granted.
254. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear
that, in these proceedings we have gone into only the
question of procedure followed by KPSC in preparing the list
of eligible candidates to be admitted to the written
examination and the list of candidates eligible to be called
for personality test. In this regard no personal interest of
any person is involved. The lapses pointed out is common to
all the three selections of 1998, 1999 and 2004. Similarly,
the other aspect which we have decided in this proceedings
is that, the directions issued by the High Court in the earlier
proceedings are not given effect to. In so far as taking into
consideration annulled marks is concerned, KPSC has
admitted the mistake and they have redone the merit list.
- 426 -
We have also issued a direction to the KPSC to subject 91
answer scripts which are above 10%. Therefore, here also
no personal interest is involved. It is also pertinent to note
the orders passed in the writ petition as set out earlier, this
Court virtually monitored the investigation and enquiry. It
has passed orders from time to time which are complied by
K.P.S.C., and the Government. Most of the material now on
record is unearthed by such orders. The petitioners have no
role to play in this regard. The Court is concerned about fair
recruitment to the civil post in the State. A Constitutional
authority entrusted with this solemn duty has failed in this
regard. Therefore, in public interest, this writ petition was
entertained and directions were issued from time to time.
This being a Writ Petition filed in public interest, these
issues which concern the public appointment to a public
office are dealt with by us. Therefore, it is too late in the day
for the respondents to contend that this writ petition as
P.I.L., is not maintainable.
- 427 -
POINT NO.6 – PRIVATE INTEREST 255. All other disputes, which are raised by the
petitioners and also the respondents with reference to
individual candidates are concerned we decline to go into the
same. The petitioners’ applications before the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal is still pending. Therefore, all those
disputes we are relegating to the Tribunal to be decided by
the Tribunal. It is open to the petitioners either to seek
appropriate amendments in the petition pending before the
Tribunal and agitate their rights and seek redressal before
the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
256. In so far as respondents who have sought to
defend their individual cases are concerned, as we have not
gone into those aspects and pronounced any orders and as
all those matters are personal to those respondents, it is
open to them to approach the Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. If they are
impleaded as parties by the petitioners, they could put forth
their view point in those proceedings. Therefore, we make it
- 428 -
clear, except the issues which we have decided in these
proceedings, all other disputes are relegated to the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for adjudication and
decision if a request is made by any of the parties to this
proceedings. As resolution of the disputes need the report
submitted by the members of the High Court Committee.
High Court office is directed to keep all those reports in safe
custody and transmit the same to the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal, if any order is passed to that effect.
That would meet the ends of justice.
POINT NO. 7 - K.P.S.C
257. Chapter-II of Part-XIV of the Constitution of
India deals with the Public Service Commissions. Article 315
of the Constitution of India deals with the establishment of
Public Service Commissions for the Union as well as the
States. Article 320 of the Constitution of India deals with
the functions of the Public Service Commissions which reads
as under:
“320. Functions of Public Service
Commissions
- 429 -
(1) It shall be the duty of the Union and the State
Public Service Commission to conduct
examinations for appointments to the services of
the Union and the services of the State
respectively
(2) It shall also be the duty of the Union Public
Service Commission, if requested by any two or
more State so to do, to assist those States in
framing and operating schemes of joint
recruitment for any services for which candidates
possessing special qualifications are required
(3) The Union Public Service Commission or the
State Public Service Commission, as the case may
be, shall be consulted-
(a) on all matters relating to methods of
recruitment to civil services and for civil posts;
(b) on the principles to be followed in making
appointments to civil services and posts and in
making promotions and transfers from one service
to another and on the suitability of candidates for
such appointments, promotions or transfers;
(c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person
serving under the Government of India or the
- 430 -
Government of a State in a civil capacity,
including memorials or petitions relating to such
matters;
(d) on any claim by or in respect of a person who
is serving or has served under the Government of
India or the Government of a State or under the
Crown in India or under the Government of an
Indian State, in a civil capacity, that any costs
incurred by him in defending legal proceedings
instituted against him in respect of acts done or
purporting to be done in the execution of his duty
should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of
India, or, as the case may be, out of the
Consolidated Fund of the State;
(e) on any claim for the award of a pension in
respect of injuries sustained by a person while
serving under the Government of India or the
Government of a State or under the Crown in
India or under the Government of an Indian State,
in a civil capacity, and any question as to the
amount of any such award, and it shall be the
duty of a Public Service Commission to advice on
any matter so referred to them and on any other
matter which the President, or, as the case may
be, the Governor, of the State, may refer to them:
Provided that the President as respects the all
- 431 -
India services and also as respects other services
and posts in connection with the affairs of the
Union, and the Governor, as respects other
services and posts in connection with the affairs
of a State, may make regulations specifying the
matters in which either generally, or in any
particular class of case or in any particular
circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a
Public Service Commission to be consulted
(4) Nothing in clause (3) shall require a Public
Service Commission to be consulted as respects
the manner in which any provision referred to in
clause (4) of Article 16 may be made or as
respects the manner in which effect maybe given
to the provisions of Article 335.
(5) All regulations made under the proviso to
clause (3) by the President or the Governor of a
State shall be laid for not less than fourteen days
before each House of Parliament or the House or
each House of the Legislature of the State, as the
case may be, as soon as possible after they are
made, and shall be subject to such modifications,
whether by way of repeal or amendment, as both
Houses of Parliament or the House or both Houses
of the Legislature of the State may make during
the session in which they are so laid.”
- 432 -
258. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF U.P. –
VS- RAFIQUDDIN reported in AIR 1987 SUPP. SCC 401
while dealing with the functioning of Karnataka Public
Service Commission has held as under:
“30. …………The Commission is an independent
expert body. It has to act in an independent
manner in making the selection on the prescribed
norms. It may consult the State Government and
the High Court in prescribing the norms for
judging the suitability of candidates if no norms
are prescribed in the Rules. Once the Commission
determines the norms and makes selection on the
conclusion of the competitive examination and
submits list of the suitable candidates to the
Government it should not reopen the selection by
lowering down the norms at the instance of the
Government. If the practice of revising the result of
competitive examination by changing norms is
followed there will be confusion and the people
will lose faith in the institution of Public Service
Commission and the authenticity of selection……
We are of opinion that the Commission should
take firm stand in these matters in making the
selection in accordance with the norms fixed by
law or fixed by it in accordance with law
- 433 -
uninfluenced by the directions of the State
Government unsupported by the Rules.
259. Again the Apex Court in the case of INDER
PARKASH GUPTA Vs.- STATE OF J & K reported in
(2004)6 SCC 786 has held as under:
“The Public Service Commission is a body created
under the Constitution. Each State constitutes its
own Public Service Commission to meet the
Constitutional requirement for the purpose of
discharging its duties under the Constitution.
Appointment to service in a State must be in
consonance with the constitutional provisions and
in conformity with the autonomy and freedom of
executive action. Article 133 of the Constitution
imposes duty upon the State to conduct
examination for appointment to the services of the
State. The Public Service Commission is also
required to be consulted on the matters
enumerated under Section 133. While going
through the selection process the Commission,
however, must scrupulously follow the statutory
rules operating in the field. It may be that for
certain purposes, for example, for the purpose of
short-listing, it can lay down its own procedure.
The Commission, however, must lay down the
- 434 -
procedure strictly in consonance with the
statutory rules. It can not take any action which
per se would be violative of the statutory rules or
makes the same inoperative for all intent and
purport. Even for the purpose of short-listing, the
Commission cannot fix any kind of cut-off marks.”
260. Yet in another judgment in the case of STATE
OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. MANJIT SINGH AND
OTHERS reported in (2003) 11 SCC 559, the Apex Court
has held as under:
“11. ………The Commission derives its powers
under Article 320 of the Constitution as well as its
limits too. Independent and fair working of the
Commission is of utmost importance. It is also not
supposed to function under any pressure of the
government, as submitted on behalf of the
appellant Commission. But at the same time it
has to conform to the provisions of the law and
has also to abide by the rules and regulations on
the subject and to take into account the policy
decisions which are within the domain of the
State Government. It cannot impose its own policy
decision in a matter beyond its purview.”
- 435 -
261. Therefore, the Public Service Commission is a
body created under the Constitution. While going through
the selection process, the Commission, however, must
scrupulously follow the statutory rules operating in the field.
They must lay down the procedure strictly in consonance
with the statutory rules. It cannot take any action which per
se would be violative of the statutory rules or makes the
same inoperative for all intent and purport. It has to
conform to the provisions of the law and has also to abide by
the rules and regulations on the subject and to take into
account the policy decisions which are within the domain of
the State Government. To discharge such constitutional and
statutory duty, the Chairman and members of the
Commission have to be men of high integrity, caliber and
qualification. The examination board also should consists of
highly qualified persons who have rich experience in
conducting such examination in the past or trained in this
behalf with proven record of honesty and integrity. The
Commission for the purpose of valuation of answer scripts is
expected to appoint reputed examiners who have track
- 436 -
record of honesty and integrity along with efficiency and
expertise in the subject in which they are called upon to be
the valuers. A senior person with an unblemished record
should be appointed as a Head Examiner. Therefore, the
method of recruitment and conduct of examination for
appointments to the services should be fool proof and
conducted in a professional manner, so that there is no
scope for any mischief at any stages of the recruitment
process.
262. This case reveals how the KPSC is functioning in
Karnataka in recent years contrary to the Constitution
mandate, which is evident from the following reports:-
THREE MAN COMMITTEE:
263. The manner in which the valuation of written
scripts is done is exposed by the Three Man Committee
which was constituted to go into the illegalities and
irregularities, in the conduct of evaluation of the papers in
- 437 -
the written examination of the 1998 batch of Gazetted
Probationers.
264. During the pendency of the Writ Petition before
this Court in W.P.Nos. 12548-589/2002, realising the
mistakes committed, the KPSC offered to redo the
moderation and circulated its proposal to all the counsel.
They also held an in-house enquiry by a Three Member Sub
Committee in regard to the alleged irregularities. In
pursuance of the said submission on 14.3.2002 in the
Special Meeting of the Commission, they took a decision to
constitute the Three Man Committee consisting of Sri R.
Nagaraja, Mohd. Ali Khan and Sri D.N. Munikrishna and
they were requested to hold an enquiry in respect of these
three candidates and also in other aspects which would
come to their notice and to submit a report. It was further
made clear that they are at liberty to give a report pointing
out any defects in the process of recruitment and to give
suggestions so that there would be transparency in valuation
of the answer scripts.
- 438 -
265. The terms of reference to the Sub-Committee
was as under:-
(1) To enquire into valuation of answer scripts of
the three candidates viz., Sri Rameswarappa, Sri
B.S. Nagaraj and Smt. B.S. Triveni;
(2) To enquire into any other irregularities/lapses
disclosed during the enquiry; and
(3) To suggest measures to be taken by the
Commission to eliminate the
shortcomings/defects, if any, in the conduct of
competitive examinations and valuation of
answer scripts so as to ensure transparency and
uniformity in the valuation.”
266. The Committee enquired into the matter in detail
and submitted a report. The relevant portion of the report
reads as under : -
In respect of Sri K. Rameswarappa, Sri B.S.
Nagaraj, Smt. B.S. Triveni and Smt. B.S.
Hemalath, the Chief Examiner Prof. K.S. Shivanna
has moderated 3 papers each of these candidates
and has increased the marks enormously. All
these four persons who are closely related are
selected with Sri K. Rameswarappa getting first
- 439 -
rank, Sri B.S. Nagaraj getting second rank and
Smt. B.S. Triveni getting fourth rank and Smt.
B.S. Hemalath getting selected as Tahsildar that
is Group-B post though not securing glaringly high
rank as the other three. By virtue of their high
ranks secured Sri K. Rameswarappa is selected
as Assistant Commissioner, Sri B.S. Triveni is
also selected as Assistant Commissioner and Sri
B.S. Nagaraj is selected as Assistant
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It appears
Prof. K.S. Shivanna boosted the marks and
selected more than one answer script of the very
same candidate in cases other than these 4+6
candidates also only with a view to find a cover
for his wrong doing in respect of these four + six
candidates.
The evidence collected by the Committee shows
that Prof. K.S. Shivanna, the Chief Examiner, Sri
K. Rameswarappa, the beneficiary of the largesse
not only for himself but also for his family
members and Sri A.K. Monnappa, who was the
Secretary of the Commissioner and without
whose connivance it would not have been
possible for the Chief Examiner to know the code
numbers of the candidates, joined together as a
- 440 -
well knit team and all the three have been part of
criminal conspiracy.
Evidence collected by the Committee shows
that Sri K. Rameswarappa was visiting Sri A.K.
Monnappa, the Secretary of the Commission very
frequently. The regularity of his visits were so
frequent that he was not even required to send
either a visiting card seeking permission to see Sri
A.K.Monnappa or send a chit containing his name
to the Secretary seeking the permission to see
him. That apart, Prof. K.S. Shivanna was the
research guide for the Ph.D programme of Sri K.
Rameswarappa. After the examination and
evaluation was over during September, 2000
these three persons have also undertaken a joint
foreign tour. Sri. K. Rameswarappa has given E-
mail ID of Prof. K.S. Shivanna as his E-mail
address in the conference papers. The evidence
collected by the Committee clearly establishes
that Sri A.K.Monnappa has parted with the code
numbers of the candidates to prof. K.S. Shivanna
and he has also taken the help of Prof. Shivanna
in substitution of some of the answer papers of
these four candidates in question. The committee
is of the view that the result of these four
candidates requires to be annulled and
- 441 -
appropriate action including criminal has to be
initiated against the four candidates in question,
Sri. A.K. Monnappa who was the then Secretary
of the Commission and Prof A.K. Shivanna who
was the Chief Examiner in question.
267. In the light of the above discussion, the
findings of the Committee are:-
(1) The results of Sri. K. Rameswarappa, Sri
B.S. Nagaraj, Smt. B.S. Triveni and Smt. B.S.
Hemalatha are vitiated by malpractices and,
therefore, the committee recommends that their
candidature be cancelled and they be debarred
form taking any future examination conducted by
the Commission after issuing them notices and
following the procedure prescribed under the
Rules of the Commission.
(2) In case of Smt. Leela M, Sri. Ponnappa, Sri.
Naveen P.C. Sri. Subhash K.G. Sri. Pratap K.R.
and Sri Cauveriappa are prima-facie committee
could not establish a nexus between Dr. K.S.
Shivanna, Secretary Sri. A.K. Monnappa and
these 6 candidates but irresistible interference
leads to show that they have indulged in
malpractice ( why and how Prof. Shivanna picks-
- 442 -
up all the 4 coded answer scripts of these 6
candidates only, and awards enormous marks
over and above the Examiners marks for scripts
which obviously do not merit such marks).
Therefore, the committee recommends that their
candidature also may be cancelled after due
process of enquiry.
(3) Sri. K. Rameswarappa is already a civil
servant. Prof.K.S. Shivanna is working in the
University of Mysore. Sri. A.K. Monnappa is an
IAS Officer borne on the cadre of Karnataka State.
Appropriate disciplinary action and criminal
action be initiated against these three persons
who have committed offences of criminal
conspiracy, breach of trust, manipulation of
records etc. in addition to taking criminal action
against the other three candidates who are
beneficiaries along sri. K. Rameswarappa.
Commission may take up the matter of taking
appropriate disciplinary proceedings against Sri
K.Rameswarappa, Prof. K.S. Shivanna, and Sri.
A.K. Monnappa with the respective disciplinary
authorities viz., the Government and the
University of Mysore. The Commission may
forthwith blacklist Prof. K.S. Shivanna and
disqualify him from being associated with any
- 443 -
examination to be conducted by the Commission
in future. Such Black listing may also be
circulated to UPSC, other state PSCs and all other
Indian universities.
(4) The Sub-Committee is satisfied that except in
the 10 cases mentioned above there is no
deliberate wrong or malafide intent or injustice
caused in the valuation process including the
moderation done by the Head Examiners/Chief
Examiners.
(5) The Sub-Committee has submitted a
separate report recommending reformations to be
made in the entire examination and evaluation
system to make it more foolproof with visible
checks and balances.
268. Therefore, the Committee held that the results of
these four candidates requires to be annulled and
appropriate action including criminal has to be initiated
against the four candidates in question. The Committee
recommended that the candidature be cancelled and they be
debarred from taking any examination conducted by the
Commission. They were also directed to be blacklisted and
- 444 -
disqualified from being associated with any examination to
be conducted by the Commission in future. It was also
directed the said blacklisting may also be circulated to UPSC
and other State Public Service Commissions and all other
Indian Universities.
K.K.MISHRA REPORT:
269. After coming to know of the gravity of the
illegalities in the recruitment by the KPSC, the Government
of Karnataka appointed Sri. K.K.Mishra, the Additional Chief
Secretary and Principal Secretary to the Government,
Commerce and Industries Department, to examine the report
of the Three Man Committee constituted by the KPSC and
hold a fresh enquiry and submit a report. On such
entrustment of enquiry, Sri K.K. Mishra, after examining the
report of the said Committee of the KPSC, was of the view
that examining some witnesses, who are 31 in number,
again for the purpose of present enquiry would not serve any
useful purpose. Further since most of them are employees
of the KPSC or various Colleges/Universities, he had no
- 445 -
authority to secure their presence and examine them or
record their statements. Therefore, in his view, it would
suffice for the enquiry by him that if the findings of the KPSC
Sub-Committee as regards the role of the officers concerned
are reviewed and the evidence recorded/available against
them is revalued, with a view to make recommendations to
the Government for appropriate action. Thereafter, Sri K.K.
Mishra took note of the recruitment process undertaken by
the KPSC., the application filed by the aggrieved persons
before the KAT., the orders passed by the KAT, then the
orders passed by the High Court, setting aside the order
passed by the KAT in part and directions issued in the said
orders. Thereafter, he has reviewed the report of the Three
Man Committee. He submitted a report, which is as under:
(iv) Irregularities:-
17. On the basis of allegations made before the
Tribunal/High Court and the enquiry conducted
by the KPSC sub-committee, following
irregularities have come to light.
a. Mutual copying by four candidates, namely
Shri K. Rameshwarappa and three of his close
- 446 -
relatives by obtaining adjacent seats in the same
examination room.
b. Substitution of some answer books/pages of
answer books in case of these candidates.
c. Awarding of unduly high marks by First
Examiner.
d. Unduly high increase in marks by Head
Examiner.
e. Undue and abnormal increase in marks by
Chief Examiner at the time of moderation in
General Studies and History papers in respect of
these four and some other candidates.
f. Moderation by Prof. K.S. Shivanna in respect of
General Studies and History Papers written in
English medium, although he was an examiner
for Kannada Medium only.
g. Picking out of three or four answer scripts of
same candidates under random mode ratio,
which shows that the secrecy of code numbers
was compromised.
31. It is therefore evidence that the irregularities
committed in regard to Main Examination were
much larger and widespread than those identified
by the sub committee which it appears is only the
proverbial tip of the iceberg. Firstly, the
irregularities were not confined to the
- 447 -
moderation/review only, since the first
examiners/valuators have also increased marks
at least in case of two of the ten candidates
debarred by the Commission. Secondly, if the
moderation/review in as many as 19 subjects
was improper and illegal, it is evident that the
code numbers of a very large number of
candidates had been leaked out. Although the
ultimate responsibility for this large scale leakage
will have to be borne by the then Secretary,
KPSC, it will be too far fetched to argue that he
himself was personally interested in all these
cases or that he had personally leaked out the
code numbers of all such candidates. The
available evidence does not absolve him, but
points to serious irregularities of much higher
magnitude than what has been brought out by
the report of the sub committee as the three men
conspiracy. A more likely theory appears to be
that code numbers of the answer scripts of a large
number of candidates had been leaked out to the
candidates. These candidates had then
individual approached the valuators/Head
examiners/Chief examiners for getting their
marks increased.
- 448 -
32. Since the number of candidates whose code
numbers appear to have been leaked out is quite
large, it may not be very difficult through proper
interrogation of the concerned candidates to
ascertain the modus operendi as also the identify
of the persons who had leaked the code numbers
in mass.
Conclusion
33. After careful consideration of all the material
made available to me, it is evident that a large
number of irregularities have been committed in
the conduct of Gazetted probationers (Group A
and B) Main examination 1999. The report of the
subcommittee has brought out only some of these
irregularities. Some others are listed in the
Proceedings of the Commission dated 18.1.2003
and yet some others have been brought out by the
Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 11.10.2002.
The three men conspiracy theory propounded by
the subcommittee does not explain all the
irregularities, a number of which were brought out
subsequently in the judgment of Hon’ble High
Court. Available information now points to
irregularities in a very large number of cases and
possible involvement of a very large number of
persons associated with the examination.
- 449 -
34. Most of the irregularities committed are very
serious and are criminal in nature. The sub
committee has identified offences involving
‘Manipulation of records, criminal conspiracy and
criminal breach of trust” and has rightly
suggested initiation of criminal proceedings in
respect of persons responsible. Most of these
offences appear cognizable. Under Section 44 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the duty and
responsibility of every citizen to report the
commission of serious offences to nearest
magistrate or police. A failure to do so is an
offence under Section 202 of the Indian Penal
Code. Further in this case, KPSC has undertaken
to take action on subcommittee’s report in its
submissions to the High Court. The Commission
may, therefore be advised to list the offences
committed and file a FIR before the Police at the
earliest. KPSC may also be advised that
whenever there is prima facie case as in case of
Prof. K.S. Shivanna, Shri K.S. Bahat, Shri
Veerabadraiah and Shri K. Vishwanath the
concerned Universities may be asked to initiate
simultaneous disciplinary proceedings against
them. KPSC may also permanently debar them
from any future work. While there is prima facie
- 450 -
case against some like Prof. K.S. Shivanna, the
role and responsibility of most others for the
purpose of conducting Departmental Enquiries
can be fixed only after detailed investigation,
which can be conducted by professional experts.
35. Except in cases of valuators, the Head
Examiners and the Chief Examiners, against
whom direct evidence is available, any action to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against other
officers at this stage, without full investigation,
may not serve much purpose, since the available
evidence is sketchy and the persons really guilty
may not have been identified. A comprehensive,
impartial and early investigation would also help
restore the faith of general public in the selection
process for Government services, which has been
seriously impaired by several alleged
irregularities and illegalities. “It is therefore very
necessary that, as regards Departmental
Enquiries, the Government should refer the case
to Hon’ble Lokayukta with a request to get all
aspects of irregularities investigated, identify the
persons responsible and suggest further
necessary action.
36. Before parting with the report, it may be
worthwhile to make some recommendations with
- 451 -
regard to two matters relating to this examination.
The first is regarding the process of coding of
answer scripts. It appears that at the behest of
Shri Harish Gowda, the present Secretary, the
KPSC has become the first examination body in
the country to devise a bar coding system for
coding of answer scripts. The system has
already been used for Excise Sub-Inspectors’
examinations held in December 2002. It appears
that the Bangalore University has also decided to
introduce the bar coding system in their
examinations to ensure strict confidentiality and
prevent any external interference during the
evaluation process. KPSC must ensure that the
system is adopted in all their future examinations
without any exception.
37. The Second recommendation relates to marks
assigned for personality test and interview. For
several selections, the number of marks for
interview have been significantly reduced. But
for gazetted probationers (Group A and Group B
examination, marks for interview are still quite
high being 200. In the list of successful
candidates (since set aside and to be redone) out
of first 100 candidates as many as 57 owe their
high ranks to 195 marks out of 200 secured by
- 452 -
them in the interview. Out of first 400 candidates
as many as 205 have secured 195 marks out of
200. Considering that the difference between the
highest and the lowest marks awarded for the
interview is 120, the interview marks have played
a predominant role in the selection process. This
needs to be corrected, as has been done for other
selections. It is therefore recommended that the
marks awarded in the interview in these
examinations may be considered only for
qualifying purposes (as in case of English and
Kannada papers) and may not be considered for
deciding the merit. Till such time as rules are
mended to this effect, KPSC be advised to
associate members from a panel of eminent
outside experts, well versed in personality
assessment, for conducting interviews, as is the
practice being followed by UPSC in case of All
India Services Examinations. Only one or two
members from KPSC may be included in each
team of interviews.”
270. As could be seen from the aforesaid report,
Sri.K.K.Mishra has observed that the report of the
subcommittee has brought out only some of the
irregularities. Some others are listed in the proceedings of
- 453 -
the Commission dated 18.01.2003 and yet some others have
been brought out by the Hon’ble High Court in its order
dated 11.10.2002. The three man conspiracy theory
propounded by the subcommittee does not explain all the
irregularities, a number of which were brought out
subsequently in the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court.
Available information now points to irregularities in a very
large number of cases and possible involvement of a very
large number of persons associated with the examination.
Most of the irregularities committed are very serious and are
criminal in nature. The subcommittee had identified the
offences involving “manipulation of records, criminal
conspiracy and criminal breach of trust”. Most of these
offences appears cognizable. Under Section 44 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure it is the duty and responsibility of every
citizen to report the Commission of serious offence to nearest
Magistrate or Police. A failure to do so is an offence under
Section 202 of the Indian Penal Code. A comprehensive,
impartial and an early investigation would also help restore
the faith of general public in the selection process for
- 454 -
Government Service, which has been seriously impaired by
several alleged irregularities and illegalities. He has observed
insofar as marks assigned for personal test is concerned, for
several selections, number of marks for interview have been
significantly reduced. But for gazetted probationers
examination, marks for interview are sill quite high being
200. In the list of successful candidates (since set aside and
to be redone), out of first 100 candidates, as many as 57 owe
their high ranks to 195 marks out of 200 secured by them in
the interview. Out of first 400 candidates, as many as 205
have secured 195 marks out of 200. Considering that the
difference between the highest and the lowest marks
awarded in the interview is 120, the interview marks have
played a predominate role in the selection process. This
needs to be corrected as has been done for other selection.
271. After Sri. K.K.Mishra submitted his report to the
Commission, a meeting was held by the Commission on
21.05.2003. The members of the Commission were of the
view that the order dated 11.10.2002 passed by this Court
- 455 -
was not followed in letter and spirit. There was lapses from
the order in the following aspects:
1. Random review method as per order of
the Hon’ble High Court in respect of
answer script, where there is various of
plus or minus marks.
2. Instead of moderated Head/Chief
Examiners, joint valuation was carried
on.
3. Moderation of more than 50% of the
answer spirit were picked up as against
10%.
4. After moderation of the answer script,
only plus mark was given to their
favorite candidates.
272. Four of the members of the Commission noted
that the Secretary Sri.B.A.Harish Gowda who was made
incharge by the High Court to monitor this evaluation has
not discharged the duty of moderation of answer script as
per the orders of the High Court. While picking up of the
papers, the procedure laid down by the High Court was not
- 456 -
followed. The Secretary has not followed the orders of the
High Court in all aspects. The procedure adopted by the
Secretary was not in accordance with law of the letter and
spirit of order of the High Court instead of clarifying the
matter and ensuring that the Secretary has followed the
orders of the High court in his letter and spirit and course
evaluation of the view of the – members who are present in
the meeting observed that then Chairman Dr.H.N.Krishan
has dodged the points raised. He has given clean chit to the
Secretary and he has also admitted that the actual
moderation of the answer script which has not placed on it.
Bare reading of the minutes of the meeting held on the said
date clearly shows that the then chairman was interested
party.
C.I.D. REPORT
273. As no steps were taken by the Government in
pursuance to the recommendation of K.K.Misra’s Committee,
the KPSC continued to commit the same mistake in the
successive examinations conducted for the year 1999 and
2004. The petitioners preferred W.P.No.11550/2008 for a
- 457 -
direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to
thoroughly enquire into the whole selection process for the
year 1998, 1999 and 2004 batches. When the said writ
petition came for consideration on 16.10.2014 before the
Division Bench of this Court presided by the Hon’ble Chief
Justice, learned Principal Government Advocate stated that
the Government will order to investigate in the matter
through the CID. In fact, in the first instance,
Mr.Ajith.J.Gunjal was appointed by the Hon’ble Chief
Justice to monitor the investigation. Subsequent to this,
former Judge “Justice Mohammed Anwar” was appointed to
monitor the investigation. After a detailed investigation, the
CID submitted its report.
274. Sri.B.A.Padma Nayana, IPS, Deputy Inspector
General of Police, CID was appointed as the Enquiry Officer
for the years 1998-99 and 2004. After investigation, he
submitted a report on 09.04.2012. It was placed on record.
After referring to the facts set out above, the CIDs issued
notices to all the selected candidates, the petitioners in the
writ petitions and others to appear before the Investigating
- 458 -
Officer to give their statements. Good number of witnesses
turned up and gave their statements. Statements of key
witnesses were also got recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. through the jurisdictional Court.
275. The said report discloses that voluminous
documents were seized from KPSC and other offices and
were brought on PF (1-65). The houses of accused Dr.
H.N.Krishna, the Chairman of the KPSC and Mrs. Asha
Parveen were searched and a number of incriminating
documents were seized from the residence of Dr.
H.N.Krishna which included the list of candidates with their
register numbers, photos, marks secured and calculation of
marks noted in pencil. Apart from this, number of
documents relating to movable and immovable properties
were recovered from the residence of Dr.H.N.Krishna and
these were handed over to Karnataka Lokayukta for taking
necessary action as per the directions of the Hon’ble
Monitoring Judge. Karnataka Lokayukta Police registered a
case of amassment of properties disproportionate to known
- 459 -
sources of income and investigating the same vide LAC
No.56/2011.
276. During the course of investigation, accused
Dr.H.N.Krishna, former Chairman of KPSC was arrested,
interrogated and remanded to judicial custody who was later
released on bail by the Hon’ble High Court. Accused
Smt.Asha Parveen, Smt.Salma Firdose who were candidates
in 1998 selection were arrested and released on bail since
anticipatory bail was granted to them by the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka. Sri.M.Banakar, Sri.Narasimha and
Sri.Gopi Krishna, all employees of KPSC were also arrested
and remanded to judicial custody as they were found to have
conspired with Dr.H.N.Krishna in commission of offences,
which are considered in charge-sheet submitted to the
jurisdictional 1st ACMM Court. The Sessions Court later
released these accused persons on bail.
- 460 -
277. A detailed investigation has disclosed that:
1. Accused Dr.H.N.Krishna is punishable for
offences under Section 418, 465, 468, 471, 506
r/w 109, 120(b) IPC.
2. Accused Ms.Asha Parveen is punishable for
offences under Section 465, 468, 471, 420, 120(b)
IPC.
3. Accused Ms.Salma Firdose is punishable
for offences under Section 465, 468, 471, 420 IPC.
4. Accused Sri.K.Narasimha is punishable for
offences under Section 465, 471, 468 r/w 120(b)
IPC.
5. Accused Sri.P.Gopal Krishna is punishable
for offences under Section 465, 468, 471 r/w
120(b) IPC.
6. Accused Sri.M.B.Banakar is punishable for
offences under Section 465, 468, 471 r/w 120(b)
IPC.
278. In the said report, each of the allegations were
considered separately. Some of the allegations were found to
be without any basis but some allegations were found to be
- 461 -
proved. In these writ petitions, we are only considered with
those allegations, which are held to be proved. They are
extracted as hereunder:
3. Allegation – Misleading the Hon’ble
Court resulting in grave detriment of meritorious Candidates: It is alleged that In a memo dated
27.03.2002 filed by the KPSC before the Hon’ble
Court, that “The total number of cases where the
variation is plus or minus 20 or more has been
identified as 661”. KPSC south the moderation of
answer scripts on the basis of this submission
and thereby mislead the Hon’ble High Court that
this was not a very large figure and that being so
it would not entail any hardship to thousand of
candidates who had taken up the examination.
Findings:
The KPSC in its Memo dated 27.03.2002,
before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition
Nos.12548-12589/2002 submits that “The total
number of cases where the variation is plus or
minus 20 or more has been identified as 661” but
it is not clear in how many number of answer
scripts the said number of variation were noticed.
- 462 -
However, the Hon’ble High Court in their Order
dated 11.10.2002 directed the KPSC to redo a
fresh moderation in regard to the 18 optional
thereafter in another order for two more general
papers. Accordingly, KPSC carried out the
moderation and scaling process. The petitioners
have chosen the figure 661, which was submitted
by KPSC to the Hon’ble Court in a different
context.
It is also alleged by the petitioner’s that as
many as 404 candidates the marks were reduced
to ‘Zero’. This is because of the moderation and
scaling of marks adopted by the KPSC as per the
clarificatory orders dated 04.07.2003 by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on IA-V filed by
the KPSC in Writ Petition Nos.12548 to
12589/2002.
Statement of Ms.Shoba Basavaraj, system
Analyst was recorded in connection with
moderation and scaling (Annexure-7).
Also Sri.Harish Gowda, IAS the then
Secretary, KPSC and presently working as
Secretary to Government, Food and Civil Supplies
and Consumer Affairs, Department gave his
written statement regarding moderation, scaling
and other related matters (Annexures -8). The
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has observed
- 463 -
“Following the directions from the Hon’ble High
Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court Moderation
and scaling was done by KPSC with respect to
the Gazetted probationer’s examination 1998.
According to Mr.Harish Gowda, IAS and
former secretary in his statement states that
“answer scripts of 1998 Gazetted Probationers
(Group A & B) Examination were picked for the
revaluation as per the order of the Hon’ble High
Court had extracted the suggestion made by the
KPSC in its memo dated 27.03.2002, as follows:
“On the basis of random review
of answer scripts done in respect of
answer scripts evaluated by each
examiner average variation shall be
arrived at. Wherever the average
variation is less than plus or minus
20 general review of the marks
awarded need not be done. However,
where the average difference is plus
or minus 20 or more, the marks
awarded by such examiner shall be
increased or decreased by that
average in respect of each of the
answer scripts evaluated by that
examiner. In case the average
- 464 -
variation is less than plus or minus
20, but variation in respect of
individual answer scripts is plus or
minus 20 or more those answer
scripts would be subjected to third
valuation”.
The Hon’ble Court had further directed that
the entire process of moderation shall be done
under the supervision of the Secretary of KPSC
and that it is open to him to have the moderation
done at a two-tier level (that is Head Examiner
and Chief Examiner) or have it done at only one
level (that is chief Examiner). He shall select and
prepare a fresh panel of Head and / or Chief
Examiners for this purpose. We decided to have
the moderation done at one level, but in a better
way.
In order to ensure that no malpractice was
committed or the weaknesses or handicaps of the
examiners affected the valuation and to ensure
uniformity of treatment to tall the scripts, as any
increase or decrease in marks in one or two
scripts by the Chief examiner would have affected
the interests of the other candidates, I had got the
revaluation carried out jointly by two examiners
as in the case of Pre-University examination
- 465 -
revaluation. The examiners were made to sit
together, read the answers together and then
discuss the merits and demerits of the answers
and then jointly award the marks. This fact was
placed before the Hon’ble High Court Karnataka
in paragraph 8 of the application of the
Commission dated 12.06.2003 (IA No.V), wherein
clarification about the manner in which scaling
had to be carried out had been sought. It is as
follows:
“This Hon’ble Court had permitted the
Secretary of the petitioner to have the moderation
done at a two tier level or have it done at only one
level, also allowing him to select and prepare a
fresh panel of Head and / Or Chief Examiners for
the purpose. The random review/moderation at
two tier level was given up and the secretary has
got it done at one level, but with a team of 2
lecturers/ professors expect in two subjects i.e.,
Geology and Criminology, wherein it was found
very difficult to procure very senior examiners to
evaluate the answer scripts of those two subjects,
which were got evaluated by single senior
professors. The method of random scaling that
was proposed by the Commission as per its Memo
dated 27.03.2002 was found to be unworkable,
- 466 -
leading to great injustice having detrimental effect
on candidates”
Having considered the said application, the
Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 04.07.2003
clarified the manner in which the moderation had
to be carried out.
Every day morning, Sri. Arunachalam,
Section Officer in charge of the strong room used
to bring examiner wise computer printed lists
showing the secret codes and marks scored in all
the answer scripts evaluated by the examiners, in
the descending order. Having placed the lists
before me, he used to mention the number of
scripts that should be selected for the few in the
middle. Consciously we used to avoid ticking any
scripts in the bottom, since they belonged to “non
serious” candidates who scored very low marks.
However, the answer scripts for the third
valuation contemplated in the order of the Hon’ble
High Court were selected on the basis of the
subjects wise lists furnished by the computer
programmers of the commission.
I have also been asked to explain how
moderation was carried out in Chemistry, Law,
Philosophy, Mechanical Engineering,
- 467 -
Management, Electrical Engineering, Hindi and
Urdu subjects, in violation of the order of the
Hon’ble High Court. Revaluation and moderation
has not been carried out in the said 8 subjects
after the Hon’ble High Court annulled the tainted
moderations in the 21 subjects. I have verified
this fact with the officers of the Commission. To
be doubly sure, the Senior Programmer has run a
query on the system to find out any moderated
marks and the result is in the negative. I have
now produced the print out taken on the basis of
the said query. Since those subjects are
untouched, the marks awarded in the original
valuation and moderation remains in the
computer database as they were. Perhaps,
someone has given a print out showing marks of
the original valuation, while making the false
claim.
“No illegality or violation of the orders of the
Hon’ble High Court has been committed while
implementing its orders in respect of revaluation,
moderation and scaling”
Also the statement of Sri.Ramprasad, IAS,
Commissioner Health and Family Welfare
Department was recorded who succeeded Sri.
Harish Gowda states as under:
- 468 -
“I was working as Secretary, K.P.S.C, from
12.08.2004 to 12.01.2007. Dr.H.N.Krishna was
the Chairman of the commission during my
tenure.”
After Government gives the approval for
Recruitment of Class I and II Gazetted
probationers the Recruitment process will be
initiated as per the Gazetted probationers
Recruitment Rules 1997 which also includes
issuing of notification calling for applications. The
Notification prescribes the manner of submission
of the application along with the necessary
enclosures. This recruitment under the rules
takes place in three stages i.e., preliminary
examination, main examination and personality
test.
The Secretary has the overall responsibility
of holding the examinations both preliminary and
main as per the procedures prescribed under the
rules. The aspiring candidates should full fill the
eligibility criteria as regards age, qualification,
reservation etc., notified as in the notification.
The list of eligible candidates to write the main
examinations will be prepared based on their
merit in the preliminary examination and
- 469 -
reservation in the ration of 1:20. The Secretary
supervises the overall conduct of main
examination and also the subsequent evaluation
of the answer scripts.
Based on the merit and reservation, a list of
candidates eligible for personality test will be
prepared in the ration of 1:5. Thereafter, the
commission schedules personality test after
constituting one or more committees for the
purpose of conducting personality test.
The Candidates eligible and selected for
personality test produce the original documents to
the committee concerned for verification at the
time of personality test. The personal staff of the
members constituting the committee, verify the
original documents and record their observations
in the list as well as on the application. The
committee concerned conducts the interview
based on the information provided by the
personal staff and also on the application of the
candidate concerned. The committee after
awarding the marks and making their observation
on the documents produced, send the marks
awarded in sealed cover to the confidential
branch. Confidential branch in ‘turn enters the
marks in a marks sheet made available by the
- 470 -
computer branch. Further, the confidential branch
also cross verifies the mark in this manner the
confidential branch submits the marks statement
through the Secretary to the Chairman of the
commission. After this statement is approved by
the Chairman, the marks will be once again cross
verified with the manuscript and then the marks
statement will be published either on the same
day or following day of the personality test.
As far as the other remarks of the
Committee, the same will be sent tot the
concerned section by the confidential branch. The
concerned section will verify the observations with
the original applications, are Section officer, the
Asst. Secretary and the Deputy Secretary record
their views on the file and through secretary the
file will be submitted to the commission for final
orders. The decision of the commission in this
matter is final. When the file regarding the
remarks of the committee is put up to me by the
concerned branch in a file, the interview sheets
(statement showing the particulars of candidates
who are eligible for personality test) are not
brought to my notice.
Specially in case of Smt. Asha Parveen.S.M.
(Reg.No.113732) who was a candidate in 1998
- 471 -
examination was called for the Personality Test in
G.M.Category on 28.12.2015 at 10-00 A.M, the
remarks of the committee was put up to me in a
file, but the interview sheets were not part of that
file. Therefore, the remarks passed by Chairman
and the members was not in my knowledge.
As regards candidates Sri. Hanumantha
Gowda (Reg.No. 104648) who appeared for 1998
selection also the interview sheet was not made
available to me. Hence, I am not in a position to
clarify the selection of this candidate in general
merit category.
The Notification of 1998 selection clearly
stipulates that a candidate claiming reservation
under any reservation except SC, ST and category
–I is required to enclose an attested copy of the
caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar after the
notification but before the last date for submission
of the application.
When I took over as Secretary, most of
work in respect of revaluation for moderation and
scaling was over. During my tenure the Hon’ble
Supreme Court confirmed the orders of the High
Court as regards moderation and scaling. It was
found that in some of the subjects the revaluation
was much more than the prescribed 10%
mandated by the Courts. I got the revaluation in
- 472 -
respect of a few subjects wherein the percentage
was less than 10% carried out strictly as per the
procedure followed previously. In order to ensure
that the picking of the scores as per the court
orders is transparent, the selection of the papers
was done randomly using a computer
programmed on the basis of the formula
prescribed by the Courts. The final merit list has
been prepared for the personality test”. His
statement is enclosed (Annexure-9).
Findings:
While selecting the scripts for valuation a
list of marks in the descending order was
prepared. A perusal of records and the answer
scripts show that KPSC has taken in to
consideration the marks awarded by the
Head/Chief Examiners at the time of scaling.
Since the KPSC have taken the annulled marks
(awarded by Head/Chief Examiner), it is violation
of the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court
in Writ Petition Nos.12548-12589/2002. This
wrong step of the KPSC has resulted in titling of
marks and ultimately results. It is serious
violation of Hon’ble High Court Order and a
serious lapse. The copy of the order passed by
the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition Nos.12548-
- 473 -
12589/2002 is appended to this report as
Annexure-10.
10. Allegation - Ratio Violation in
calling for the Personality Test:
It is alleged that in the 1998 selection
process, KPSC has violated the ratio in calling for
the Personality Test. Though the total number of
candidates to be called for the Personality Test
and the number of candidates actually called for
the Personality Test doesn’t differ much, what is
pertinent to note is that in respect of GM Category,
the number called is abnormally low and in
respect of 3A & 3B Categories is abnormally high,
petitioner say that following table makes their
point clear:
Sl. No.
Category
Number of posts allotted to each category
Number to be
actually Called
Number actually Called
Difference in the Number
Ratio Difference
1 GM & GM/XMP
187 935 556 -379 1:7.96
2 SC 64 320 391 +71 1:6.10
3 ST 19 95 114 +19 1:6
4 C-1 22 110 141 +31 1:6:36
5 2A 52 260 353 +93 1:6:80
6 2B 17 85 114 +29 1:6:54
7 3A 11 55 156 +101 1:14.18
8 3B 11 55 107 +52 1:9.80
TOTAL 383 1915 1932
- 474 -
Findings:
KPSC has provided the category wise
break-up, number of posts against each category
and the number of candidates called for
Personality Test as follows:
Category No.of posts No.called for PT
GM 118 591
GM-W 58 290
GM-XMP 11 55
1 16 80
1-W 6 30
2A 35 180
2A-W 17 35
2B 12 65
2B-W 5 25
3A 9 46
3A-W 2 10
3B 9 46
3B-W 2 10
SC 44 220
SC-W 20 100
ST 17 86
ST-W 2 10
In accordance with the conditions contained
in Schedule –II of the Karnataka Recruitment of
Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by
Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 the entire
classification was done in accordance with
Government order No. D À̧ÄE D À̧ÄE D À̧ÄE D À̧ÄE 08, ¸À»ªÀÄ , ¸À»ªÀÄ , ¸À»ªÀÄ , ¸À»ªÀÄ 95, , , ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20£Éà dÆ£ï £Éà dÆ£ï £Éà dÆ£ï £Éà dÆ£ï 1995. (Annexure-13).
- 475 -
KPSC also clarifies that many of the
candidates who had been considered for selection
under GM quota, but not selected under that
quota. At later stage they have been considered
for the post under reserved categories. In that
background the variations have appeared in the
said lists. The Petitioners have not taken in to
account the number of category candidates who
moved in to general merit by virtue of their merits,
and that is the reason they have alleged.
It is disclosed during the investigation that
taking undue advantage of this provision
Dr.H.N.Krishna, obtained letters from the
candidates belonging to certain categories that
they failed to produce the ORC and pushed them
to GM to favour chosen category candidates and
facilitated in their selection by manipulating the
interview sheets with the help of his trustworthy
staff without the knowledge of other members.
This issue is considered in the charge sheet
already submitted.
3. Allegation - Selection Against Notification: It is alleged that in the 2004 selection
process, there were 4 posts of District Marketing
- 476 -
Officer. Two of which were reserved (One for
Scheduled Caste and one for Category 2A). The
other two were in GM (One for Female and one for
Kannada Medium). The posts meant for scheduled
Caste, Category 2A and GM – Female were filed
by the respective candidated. However, the GM-
Kannada medium post was filled by a 3A-
Kannada Medium candidate (Sri. Sreenivasa
Reddy, Reg.No.144700, date of birth 04.04.1971).
As on 17.12.2004 i.e., the last date for submitting
the application, the said candidate was 33 years
8 months old.)
Findings:
Sri.Srinivasa Reddy who had claimed 3A-
Kannada Medium category was selected against
a post reserved for GM-Kannada medium
category candidate. Though the said
Sri.Srinivasa Reddy (Reg.No.144700) has claimed
selection under 3A-Kannada medium category, as
he had scored high marks and fell within the GM
Cut-off marks, he was selected under GM-
Kannada Medium category.
The petitioners have alleged that a number
of 3A category candidate (who have been given
with 4% reservation) placed in the GM category on
- 477 -
merit seems to be abnormal , when compared to
the number of other reserved category candidates
(who account for the rest of 46% reservation) who
have been placed in GM category on merit. The
number of 3A category candidates in the GM
category on the basis of merit, is quite abnormal,
in comparison with other reserved category
candidates.
Year
Total Un-
Reserved posts
3A Candidates
selected in GM on merit
SC,ST,C-1,C-2, 2B,3A,3B and other categories
selected in GM on merit
1998 187 27 7
1999 96 4 7
2004 75 14 12
TOTAL 358 45 26
Findings:
No doubt that a candidate opting under
caste category will be first considered under
General Merit. In case candidate is not selected
under the GM, he will be considered under the
category in which he has applied. The perusal of
the 3 lists of the candidates after the Personality
test gives an impression that certain category
candidates are given more weightage. Also it is
- 478 -
observed that liberal marks are given to some
candidates who had scored low marks in Written
–Examination and low marks are given to the
candidates who had scored high marks in the
Written Examination.
4.Allegation –Tampering with Marks:
It is alleged and doubted by the petitioners
that in the selection of the three patches that there
was manipulation of marks of individual
candidates in the Written Examination so as to
favour the chosen candidates.
Findings:
The petitioners have not quoted any
particular instance but the allegations are general
in nature. The allegation seems to be unfounded,
as this is not based on any reliable facts. In facts
CID has procured all the answer scripts of 1998
and 2004 examination and perused them.
Answer scripts of 1999 examination are nor
preserved by the Commission since they are
destroyed as per the their Rules.
- 479 -
HOTA COMMITTEE :
279. Against the backdrop of the aforesaid Writ
Petitions filed before this Court and the order of the High
Court dated 23.8.2011 directing the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, CID, to conduct the investigation and
when the said report was submitted, and action was not
taken in terms of the report, the petitioners preferred these
Writ Petitions. KPSC conducted competitive examination
and personality test for 2011 batch of gazetted probationers.
During the process of personality test, on the basis of the
representation of one Dr.Mythri H.P.S., and also through the
electronic media it came to the notice of the Government that
the Commission was said to have committed large scale
irregularities in conducting the main examination and viva
voce. Therefore, the Government again directed the CID to
conduct investigation and submit its report. The report is
submitted. The report establishes the allegation of
manipulation and illegality alleged in the 2011 batch of
selection to the Gazetted Probation Posts. The Government of
Karnataka rescinded the request made to the KPSC to fill up
- 480 -
362 posts of Gazetted Probation Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ Officers.
Thus, the persons who are selected in the said batch were
not appointed. They preferred applications challenging the
said order of the Government in application No.6268-
6395/2014 and connected matters. In the said proceedings,
Y.S.Dalawai, Under Secretary (Services-VII), Department of
Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Vidhana Soudha
filed an affidavit on 29.04.2016 stating that on 25.06.2013,
an FIR was registered in Crime No.28 of 2013 in Vidhana
Soudha Police Station for the offences punishable under
Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under
Sections 34, 120B, 418, 420 and 465 of IPC against (a)
Sri.Gonal Bhimappa, Chairman, KPSC; (b) Sri.Arunachalam,
Asst. Secretary, KPSC; (c) Sri.Sundar, Secretary, KPSC; (d)
Dr.Mangala Sridhar, Member, KPSC and four other officials,
after a Preliminary Investigation Report was submitted to the
Government and seeking sanction under the provisions of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is submitted that
the matter is reserved for judgment. As these large scale
irregularities in conducting the examination and personality
- 481 -
test has unabated, probably being convinced with the
procedure followed in terms of the Rules being inadequate,
to prevent such mischief, the Government by order dated
26.7.2013 decided to constitute a committee under the
Chairmanship of the retired Chairman of the Union Public
Service Commission, including the Additional Chief
Secretary to Government as Member to collect some good
practices from Union Public Service Commission and other
State Public Service Commissions and to make
recommendations, as early as possible, to conduct free and
fair selection while making recruitment to the posts in the
State Civil Services. Sri P.C.Hota, IAS (Retd.) Chairman
(Retd.), UPSC, was appointed as the Chairman of the said
committee. The said committee took note of the writ
proceedings pending before this Court, particularly
irregularity conducted in the personality test for direct
recruitment of gazetted probationers in different generalistic
services of Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’. It had interaction with
all the stake holders. After taking note of the
recommendations of the Lee Commission (1924), the
- 482 -
Constitutional provisions, the procedure followed by the
UPSC, the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935,
it submitted its report which is popularly known as the ‘Hota
Committee’ report.
280. Dealing with the question of appointment of a
Chairman and members of the KPSC is concerned, it
observed that the Constitution does not lay down any
qualification for appointment of a Member or a Chairman of
either the UPSC or a State Public Service Commission. It is,
however, presumed that because of their functions, they
should be men of eminence in their respective
academic/professional fields and should have
unimpeachable record for fair play and impartiality on
matters in the public domain. Therefore, both the President
of India and Governors of States have to exercise utmost
care in appointing to the Public Service Commissions men of
outstanding caliber and competence. They referred to the
observations of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia vs Khalid
Mujib [AIR 1981 SC 487] where the Apex Court held that
- 483 -
Members and Chairman of Public Service Commissions have
to be men of high integrity, caliber and qualification.
Therefore, the process of selection and appointment of
persons as Members and Chairman of KPSC is of utmost
importance. It was observed, at present there is no
standardized arrangement to recommend names of suitable
persons to the Governor of the State for appointment of
Chairman and Members of the KPSC. As the high
constitutional office of Chairman and Members deserve to be
filled up by persons with track record of integrity, fairness
and intellectual competence, the Committee recommended
that a broad-based Search Committee be constituted by the
Government of Karnataka with the incumbent Chief
Secretary as the Member – Convenor. A former Chief
Secretary to Government/a former Secretary to the
Government of India and a retired or incumbent Director of
the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore and retired or
incumbent Director of the Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore and a Vice-Chancellor of a Central University may
be other Member of the Search Committee. The broad-based
- 484 -
Search Committee will scrutinize the bio-data and hold
“personal talk”, if required, to short-list two candidates for
one vacancy of a Member of the KPSC. The Chief Minister of
the State of Karnataka may like to nominate one out of the
panel of two names suggested by the Search Committee for
appointment as a Member by Governor of the State of
Karnataka. Invariably, the senior-most Member may be
appointed as the Chairman of the KPSC unless the senior-
most Member is considered unsuitable for such appointment
by the Government. The Search Committee may finalize the
list of two names to be sent to the Chief Minister at least two
months in advance of the likely date of occurrence of the
vacancy of a Member/Chairman KPSC so that the
appointment is announced well in advance.
281. The material on record discloses that the
persons who are behind grave irregularity and fraud are
none other than the Chairman of the KPSC and the
Secretary of the KPSC and the officials of KPSC. The
members of the Commission have stated that they have
- 485 -
acted at the behest of the Chairman of the KPSC either in
giving more marks to the candidates, giving marks to the
persons who did not attend the interview, reducing marks of
other candidates. It only shows the caliber and the standard
of persons who are appointed as the members of the
Committee.
282. The CID report discloses that voluminous
documents were seized from the house of Dr.H.N.Krishna,
the Chairman of the KPSC. Apart from this, number of
documents related to movable and immovable properties
were recorded from the residence of Dr.H.N.Krishna and
these were handed to the Karnataka Lokayukta for taking
necessary action as per the directions of the Hon’ble
monitoring Judge. Karnataka Lokayukta Police have
registered a case of amassment of properties
disproportionate to known sources of income and
investigated the same vide LAC No.56/2011.
Dr.H.N.Krishna was arrested, interrogated and remanded to
judicial custody. In fact, Smt.Asha Parveen, Smt.Salma
- 486 -
Firdose who were candidates in 1998 selection were arrested
and released on bail since anticipatory bail was granted to
them by the High Court of Karnataka. Sri.M.B.Banakar,
Sri.Narasimha and Sri.Gopi Krishna, all employees of KPSC
were also arrested and remanded to judicial custody as they
were found to have conspired with Dr.H.N.Krishna in
commission of offences.
283. The detailed investigation discloses that,
Dr.H.N.Krishnhas committed offences punishable under
Sections 418, 465, 468, 471, 506 read with 109, 120 (b) of
IPC. Mrs.Asha Parveen, Salma Firdose, K.Narasimha, Gopi
Krishna and M.B.Banakar were accused of having committed
offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120 (b) of IPC.
Against the Secretary Sri Monnappa also charge sheet was
filed accusing him of committing offences under Sections
120 (b), 109, 166, 409, 418, 420 of IPC and the case is
pending. In respect of 2011 selection, Y.S.Dalawai, Under
Secretary (Services-VII), Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms, Vidhana Soudha filed an affidavit
- 487 -
on 29.04.2016 stating that on 25.06.2013, an FIR was
registered in Crime No.28 of 2013 in Vidhana Soudha Police
Station for the offences punishable under Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 34,
120B, 418, 420 and 465 of IPC against (a) Sri.Gonal
Bhimappa, Chairman, KPSC; (b) Sri.Arunachalam, Asst.
Secretary, KPSC; (c) Sri.Sundar, Secretary, KPSC; (d)
Dr.Mangala Sridhar, Member, KPSC and four other officials.
After a Preliminary Investigation Report is submitted to the
Government, seeking sanction under the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In fact, the Governor of
Karnataka subsequently passed an order of suspension of a
member of the KPSC on similar grounds. Challenging the
said order of suspension, Writ Petition is filed which came to
be dismissed. Writ Appeal is filed before this Court and is
pending. Subsequently, the Government of Karnataka
recommended the name of another person for the post of
Chairman of KPSC. The Governor of Karnataka sought for
clarifications and being satisfied that the said person is not
suitable for the said post declined to appoint him. The
- 488 -
Government of Karnataka is not yet able to appoint the
Chairman to the KPSC. In fact, the Governor also did not
appoint all the persons recommended by the Government as
members of the Commission as there was serious allegations
against some of them. This sorry state of affairs in the most
progressive State of Karnataka is on account of extraneous
considerations, taking precedence over persons with track
record of integrity, fairness, caliber and intellectual
competence. In fact, the blame for such sorry state of affairs
has to squarely fall not on the persons appointed but on the
appointing authority. If the rulers of the day do not keep
public interest, purity of administration, welfare of the
people, in particular the downtrodden and back ward classes
and prefer to appoint persons who are not suitable for the
job on extraneous considerations, we cannot expect any
better things to happen. The facts set out in this judgment,
the facts revealed in the Three Man Committee constituted
by the KPSC, report given by K.K.Mishra, CID report and
also the report of the committee constituted by the High
Court in these proceedings clearly point out that all is not
- 489 -
well in the functioning of the KPSC. The Chairmen’s, the
Secretaries, Members of the Commission and the officials are
facing criminal prosecution. In fact such persons are
appointed. Public interest is severelly affected. When
persons with honesty and integrity are not appointed to such
Constitutional posts, to expect any fair, just, reasonable
selection from those persons is impossible.
284. In this background it is relevant to recall the
words of two eminent personalities who had an active role in
framing the Indian Constitution. Dr.Rajendra Prasad,
Chairman of the Constituent Assembly of India, at its
concluding session cautioned:
Whatever the Constitution may or may not
provide, the welfare of the country will depend
upon the way in which the country is
administered. That will depend on the men who
administer it. It is trite saying that a country can
have only the government it deserves…. After all,
a Constitution, like a machine, is a lifeless
thing…. If the people who are elected are capable
and men of character and integrity, they would
be able to make the best even of a defective
- 490 -
Constitution. If they are lacking in these, the
Constitution cannot help the country… India
needs today nothing more than a set of honest
men who will have the interest of the country
before them.
285. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, the Chairman of the drafting
Committee of the Constitution, stated in the Constituent
Assembly at its meeting on 25th November 1949 as under:
“However good a Constitution may be, it is
sure to turn out bad because those who are called
to work it happen to be a bad lot. However bad a
Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if
those who are called to work it happen to be good
lot. The working of the Constitution does not
depend wholly upon the nature of the
Constitution. The Constitution can provide only
the organs of the State such as the legislature,
the executive and the judiciary. The factors on
which the working of these organs of the State
depend are the people and the political parties
they will set up as their instruments to carry out
their wishes and their politics. Who can say how
the people of India and their parties will
behave?’”
- 491 -
286. The Constitution of India provides for
establishment of Public Service Commission for recruitment
for civil posts It provides for appointment of Chairman and
Members of the Constitution. They are all Constitutional
functionaries. The civil services of the country depends
upon the type of persons who are appointed to the said post.
The administration in the country is dependent on who
administer it. If capable and men of character and integrity
are appointed to the civil posts, then the constitutional goal
is achieved and everyone would have a fair and equal
opportunity to participate in the administration. If the
persons who are so appointed lack this basic qualities and
by manipulation, fraud, deceit and connivance with the
officials get into these posts, one can imagine what would be
the state of affairs of the administration. Therefore mere
giving constitutional status to the Public Service
Commission would not serve the purpose.
287. Therefore, the State Government, if they are
really interested in public welfare, interest in the
- 492 -
development of Karnataka, in having a good bureaucracy
which will be sensitive to the common man, down trodden,
they should appoint persons with track record of integrity,
fairness and intellectual competence as suggested by the
Hota Committee in its report at paragraphs 65 and 66. The
procedure and the qualification prescribed by the Hota
Committee report is reasonable, deserves to be implemented
in letter and spirit. The material on record also discloses
that, they have pointed out the cause for such mischief. The
candidates with high scores in the written examination
attempted to approach the members of the KPSC to give him
high marks in the interview test so that he is sure to be
selected for appointment to the prestigious services including
the Karnataka Administrative Service. They have observed
that it is because of the notification of 26.9.1978. It is
heartening to note that recommendation is already
implemented. Then in paragraphs 47, 50, 51, 53, 56, 58,
how the personality test is to be conducted, how the
committee is to be constituted, who should be the members
of the committee, for what duration interview is to be
- 493 -
conducted in respect of each candidate, so that the mischief
which is exposed in these proceedings is prevented.
Therefore, we are of the view that the Government shall give
immediate attention to the said recommendations, if
necessary amend the Rules to that effect and issue a
notification so that the past mistakes are not repeated and
no meritorious students because of the game plan by the
members of the Commission are denied the benefit of
appointment in the Karnataka Administrative Service.
Therefore, till the Government frames proper Rules for
implementation of the recommendation of this report, as is
clear from the record, these mistakes are repeated every
year, to put an end to them forthwith, we direct the
Government to follow the following recommendations of the
Hota Committee as contained in its report, in all future
selection positively without giving room for any further
attacks against the selection process by the aggrieved person
by approaching this Court.
- 494 -
IMPORTANT RECOMMENDATIONS OF HOTA
COMMITTEE
(46) The Committee received evidence that such a
stipulation in the 1973 Rules is a vulnerable
pressure point in a Merit-based selection process
as the successful candidates know in advance of
the Interview Test their total marks in the Main
Written Examination. Such a Procedure may
tempt a candidate with high scores in the Written
Examination to make attempts to approach
Members of the KPSC to give him high marks in
the Interview Test so that he is sure to be selected
for appointment to prestigious services including
the Karnataka Administrative Service.
(47) The Committee would like to go on record that
such a practice is not prevalent in any State
Public Service Commission. In the UPSC, not only
the marks in the Main Written Examination are
confidential till the final Merit List for the Civil
Service Examination is notified but even
- 495 -
Chairman and Members of the UPSC are not told
about the written scores of candidates even when
they interview the candidates by presiding over
Personality Test Boards.
(50) The Committee recommends that each
Interview Board would be presided over by the
Chairman or by a Senior Member of the KPSC and
must have four Advisers-preferably drawn from
outside the State of Karnataka. These Advisers
would be from among the retired Members of the
All India Services, retired Members of the Central
Services Group A. These Advisers should have
retired at least in the Higher Administrative Grade
(i.e. equivalent to the grade of Principal Secretary
to Government of Karnataka or of equivalent rank
for the Gazetted Probationers’ Interview and
secretary to Government of Karnataka or
equivalent rank for other posts). The four
Advisers – a majority of them preferably from
outside the State of Karnataka – may have a few
- 496 -
reputed academic administrators as retired Vice-
Chancellors of Central Universities; retired
Professors of Indian Institutes of Technology,
retired Professors of Indian Institutes of
Management, retired Professors of Indian
Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi,
retired Professors of the National Academy of
Administration, Mussoorie or other retired
Professors in Training Institutes of Government of
India located in different parts of the Country.
Some of the outside experts invited to assist an
Interview Board as Advisers may know the
Kannada language for proper assessment of
candidates who appear in Interview in the
Kannada medium. If required, the Adviser from
the state of Karnataka can translate question and
answers from Kannada to English and vice versa
for benefit of Advisers in the Interview Boards,
who do not know the Kannada language.
- 497 -
(51) The Interview Boards will assess personal
qualities of candidates and their suitability for the
Civil Service in terms of leadership qualities,
balance of judgment, variety and depth of
interest, capacity to work in a team and
persuasive skills and capacity for logical thinking.
(53) To eliminate as far as possible subjectivity in
assessment of candidates, the KPSC may
circulate a note among Chairman and Advisers of
the Interview Boards that on the basis of
performance in the Interview Test, candidates
may be categorized as Outstanding (70 percent
and above); Very Good (60 to 70 percent); Good
(50 to 60 percent); Average (40 to 50 percent) and
Poor (less than 40 percent).
(54) After a candidate, who has been interviewed
by the Interview Board, leaves the venue of the
Interview, the Chairman of the Interview Board
may ask each of the four Advisers regarding
- 498 -
opinion about the grading of the candidate in
terms of his performance in the Interview. The
Advisers will discuss the proposed score of the
candidate in the Interview Test with the
Chairman of the Board. Marks to a candidate in
the Interview Test will be awarded as per the
following formula: Chairman of the Board and the
four Advisers will separately allot marks out of
the maximum total marks in the Interview Test to
the candidate. The average score of the
candidate in the Interview Test would be arrived
at by dividing the total marks scored by the
candidate (addition of marks on a sheet of paper
recorded by each of the Members in the Board).
Thereafter, the percentage deviation (of the
maximum) from the calculated average of each
individual Member would be tabulated. The
marks allotted to a candidate by two of the five
Members of the Interview Board which show
highest deviation from the average score, would
- 499 -
not be taken into account in computing the final
score of a candidate in the Interview Test. The
marks given by the three remaining Members of
the Interview Board would be taken into account
to calculate the average score of the candidate.
This average score would be the official score of a
candidate in the Interview Test. A Note on the
modalities of assessment to be followed by an
Interview Board regarding score of a candidate in
the Interview Test is annexed. (Annexure – Three).
(56) On the day, the Interview Test will commence
in the premises of the KPSC, the Chairman KPSC
may call for a meeting of all Advisers and
Members who are to preside over the Interview
Boards. The Chairman of the KPSC may explain
the attributes to be looked for in a candidate in
the Interview Test by reference to the Prospectus
issued along with the Notification of the
Examination. In order to enable the Interview
Boards to assess the personal qualities of
- 500 -
candidate required for the Civil Service, the
Chairman will request the Advisers and Members
of the KPSC not to ask knowledge- based
questions as knowledge of the candidate has
been already tested in a Pen-and-Paper test in the
Main Written Examination. Broadly speaking,
questions to a candidate will be of general nature
to assess his various personal attributes and
leadership qualities. In the first few minutes of
the interview of candidate, the Chairman of the
Interview Board may like to ask a few pleasant
and familiar questions to put the candidate at
ease so that he overcomes his nervousness. Each
candidate may be interviewed ideally for a
duration of 25 to 30 minutes and instead of
calling 25 candidates per day for the Interview
Test as at present, only nine candidates need be
called per day- five in the forenoon and four in the
afternoon. Every week the Presiding Members
and Advisers of the Interview Board may be
- 501 -
changed by the Chairman KPSC and once a new
set of Advisers and Members come for the
Interview Board the same briefing would be given
to them as was given by the Chairman to
Members and Advisers in the previous week.
(58) The KPSC also selects specialists to fill up
technical and scientific posts under the
Government of Karnataka. It would be expedient
if for filling these posts, there are Interview
Boards constituted by the KPSC, where experts in
the relevant technical and scientific disciplines
are drawn from outside the state.
(65) The last-but not the least important
issue-is the process of selection and
appointment of persons as Members and
chairman of the KPSC. At present, there is
no standardized arrangement to recommend
names of suitable persons to the Governor of
the State for appointment of Chairman and
- 502 -
Members of the KPSC. As the high
constitutional office of Chairman and
Members deserve to be filled up by persons
with track record of integrity, fairness and
intellectual competence, the Committee
recommends that a broad – based Search
Committee be constituted by the Government
of Karnataka with the incumbent Chief
Secretary as the Member – Convenor. A
former Chief Secretary to Government/a
former Secretary to the Government of India
and a retired or incumbent Director of the
Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore
and retired or incumbent Director of the
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and a
Vice-Chancellor of a Central University may
be other Member of the Search Committee.
The broad – based Search Committee will
scrutinize the bio-data and hold “personal
talk”, if required, to short-list two
- 503 -
candidates for one vacancy of a Member of
the KPSC. The Chief Minister of the State of
Karnataka may like to nominate one out of
the panel of two names suggested by the
Search Committee for appointment as a
Member by Governor of the State of
Karnataka. Invariably, the senior-most
Member may be appointed as the Chairman
of the KPSC unless the senior-most Member is
considered unsuitable for such appointment
by the Government.
(66) The Search Committee may finalize the
list of two names to be sent to the Chief
Minister at least two months in advance of
the likely date of occurrence of the vacancy
of a Member/Chairman KPSC so that the
appointment is announced well in advance.
288. It is pertinent to point out that Hota Committee
is constituted by the Government because the mistakes
- 504 -
committed in 1998, 1999, 2004 selections were repeated in
2011. It only shows the State Government was unable to
plug the mischief, probably because they did not have the
requisite expertise. Now that an expert body is constituted,
who have given their report after consulting all the stake
holders, the Government should accept the recommendation
and implement the same. Therefore, without any delay the
Rules have to be amended comprehensively giving effect to
all the recommendation. Piecemeal amendment to rules as
is done now would not serve the purpose. The mischief may
reoccur in the future selection. Therefore, we hope in order
to have good governance in the State, the Government
would act promptly and see that, in future, selections are
done in accordance with the goal set by the Constitution of
India.
289. In the light of the aforesaid discussion on all
points which arose for consideration in this Public Interest
Litigation, We make the following:
- 505 -
O R D E R
(1) The procedure followed by the KPSC in preparing the
list of candidates who are admitted to the written
examination and the list of candidates who are called for the
personality test in 1998, 1999 and 2004 for the post of
Gazetted Probationers (Group A and B Posts) is
unconstitutional, contrary to the Rules and the Government
Orders.
However, on that ground, the entire selection of 1998,
1999 and 2004 batch selection cannot be set aside.
Segregation of tainted/ineligible candidates is possible.
The KPSC shall undertake the following exercise to segregate
the ineligible candidates:
(a) The KPSC shall prepare a separate list of
candidates belonging to the reserved
category, who took the written
examination, showing the marks secured
in the written examination in the order of
merit.
- 506 -
(b) From out of the names in the said list
prepared, prepare a list of candidates
eligible to be called for the personality test
in the ratio of 1:5, i.e., five times the
number of candidates as there are
vacancies reserved for each of the category
out of reserved posts belonging to
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and
other backward classes.
(c) If the names of the selected candidates
belonging to the reserved category finds a
place in this list, whether as General Merit
candidates or Reserved candidates, then
their appointment is valid and it shall not
be disturbed.
(d) If the names of the selected candidates do
not find a place in this list, then their
appointment is void and the same is
hereby set aside.
- 507 -
(e) The KPSC shall undertake this exercise
within two months from the date of receipt
of the copy of this order and forward the
same to the Government for passing
appropriate orders.
(2) The revised list prepared by the KPSC in terms of the
order dated 11th October 2002 in W.P.No. 12548-589/2002
which is affirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6172-
6222/2005 vide Order dated 6th October, 2005, which was
submitted to the Court by the KPSC in a sealed cover, which
was web-hosted by virtue of the order dated 11.11.2014 of
this Court, is upheld. The KPSC and the State
Government shall give effect to the said list.
(3) The KPSC shall take into consideration the 91 answer
scripts which forms part of excess of 10% of the revalued
paper and give effect to the order of the High Court dated
11th October 2002 in W.P.No. 12548-589/2002 and the
order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6172-6222/2005
vide Order dated 6th October, 2005.
- 508 -
(4) The selection of candidates for the post of 1999
Gazetted Probationers (Group A and B posts) is not liable to
be set aside on the ground of destruction of answer scripts.
(5) In respect of the matters which are adjudicated and
decided in this writ petition, this Public Interest Litigation is
maintainable.
(6) All other issues/disputes which are personal in
character are relegated to be decided by the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal, where the applications of the
petitioners are pending consideration. It is open to the
petitioners to amend the said application to include those
issues which are not decided in this Public Interest
Litigation. Similarly, it is open to the respondents to agitate
their rights/put forth their defence in the pending
proceedings before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, if
they are made parties. Otherwise, they can also initiate
independent proceedings for protecting their rights or agitate
their rights.
- 509 -
(7) The KPSC and the State Government shall take steps
to frame Rules or amend the existing Rules giving effect to
the recommendations of Hota Committee, at the earliest. Till
such Rules are framed or amended, the KPSC and the State
Government shall follow the recommendations of the Hota
Committee as set out in paragraphs 46, 47, 50, 51, 53, 54,
56, 58, 65 and 66 of the report, which are clearly set out in
paragraph 287 of this Judgment.
(8) The High Court Registry is directed to keep the reports
submitted by the members of the High Court Committee
constituted by this Court in this proceedings, in safe
custody. If and when any request is made from the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal to transmit the said
records, the same shall be sent to the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
CKL/KSP/SPS/NKK/-