The top court has ruled that a state legislature cannot use fresh legislation to revive recruitment appointments already invalidated by constitutional courts over corruption and nepotism.
In a significant setback for the Karnataka government, the Supreme Court has struck down a 2022 state law that had restored the appointments of around 191 candidates selected through the disputed 2011 recruitment process for Group A and Group B gazetted posts.
The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran declared the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022, unconstitutional. The judges held that the legislature could not overturn judicial decisions that had already upheld the cancellation of the recruitment.
With the law now set aside, appointments made under its provisions will also cease to stand.
The ruling came in Srinavasa T v State of Karnataka and Others, an appeal challenging two Karnataka High Court orders that had effectively allowed the legislation to remain in force.
Supreme Court raises serious questions over High Court’s handling of the case
The Bench expressed sharp disapproval of the manner in which the Karnataka High Court had dealt with challenges to the controversial legislation.
The judges said the public interest litigation challenging the law had received only cursory consideration. A subsequent writ petition, they observed, had been handled in much the same way, resulting in the approval of legislation that fell outside the constitutional limits of the legislature’s authority.
The Court described itself as both surprised and alarmed by the High Court’s approach, criticising the failure to properly examine the validity of a law that sought to restore appointments previously invalidated through judicial proceedings.
It also questioned the conduct of the person who had initially filed the PIL but had not adequately pursued the later challenge. According to the Bench, the proceedings suggested an attempt by an individual with no direct connection to the dispute to obstruct a legitimate legal challenge.
The judges emphasised that a public interest litigant cannot withdraw proceedings as a matter of right without the court’s permission. They added that constitutional courts retain the authority to examine a substantial legal challenge even if the original petitioner does not continue to pursue it.
Recruitment controversy dates back to 2011
The dispute originated with a notification issued on November 3, 2011, for the recruitment of candidates to 362 Group A and Group B posts in Karnataka.
An investigation by the Criminal Investigation Department uncovered serious allegations of manipulation, corruption and nepotism involving the Karnataka Public Service Commission. The findings led the state government to cancel the recruitment process.
The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal initially overturned the cancellation. However, the High Court subsequently upheld the government’s decision to scrap the selection.
Investigators had identified several troubling irregularities. These included communications between candidates and members of the commission, identical interview marks awarded without evidence of individual assessment, and the replacement of a digital video recorder in circumstances that raised concerns about the destruction of evidence.
A later effort to restart the recruitment from the written examination results stage also ran into legal trouble. The High Court found serious irregularities in the evaluation of answer scripts.
Despite those findings, the Karnataka legislature passed the 2022 Act to validate the earlier selection process. Under the legislation, 191 candidates were appointed, including 14 whom the CID had identified as tainted.
The law was subsequently challenged, but the High Court dismissed a PIL against it in 2022. That decision influenced further proceedings before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which refused interim relief to unsuccessful candidates. The High Court later rejected their challenge to that refusal, relying on its earlier order.
The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Legislature cannot simply override a final judicial decision
At the heart of the case was a constitutional question: can a legislature revive appointments by passing a new law after courts have already upheld their cancellation?
The Supreme Court drew a distinction between valid retrospective legislation and an attempt to nullify a final judicial ruling.
A legislature may, in appropriate circumstances, change the legal basis on which a judgment rests. But it cannot simply declare an existing judicial decision ineffective without addressing the underlying legal defects in the manner permitted by the Constitution.
In this case, the Court found that the 2022 law could not rescue a recruitment process already declared tainted by the constitutional courts.
The justification offered by the state — that the legislation would deliver justice to the 2011 batch of gazetted probationers — did not persuade the Bench. The judges noted that the recruitment had been found compromised by corruption and nepotism, findings that had survived judicial scrutiny.
The Court also rejected arguments that the selected candidates’ appointments deserved protection on equitable grounds. The problem, it said, was not a minor procedural lapse but a selection process fundamentally undermined by serious wrongdoing.
Fresh recruitment under current rules, age relaxation for eligible candidates
The judgment does not direct the state to restart the recruitment using the rules that applied in 2011.
Instead, the Karnataka government has been instructed to notify existing vacancies in Group A and Group B services under the recruitment rules currently in force.
The Court, however, recognised that the prolonged dispute had created difficulties for candidates who had pursued the selection in good faith. Some aspirants had become overage while the matter remained unresolved.
To address that consequence, the Bench ordered age relaxation for candidates who were not implicated in the irregularities and for those who had approached the courts or the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
The relief offers some reprieve to eligible aspirants, although it does not preserve appointments made under the invalidated legislation.
Court criticises government’s changing positions
The Bench also took issue with the Karnataka government’s shifting stance on the recruitment dispute.
The judges observed that the process, which began in 2011, had dragged on for years, leaving unsuccessful candidates in uncertainty while those appointed under the disputed law faced the prospect of losing their jobs.
In a pointed observation, the Court remarked that when political winds change, ordinary people are often left to bear the consequences.
The criticism underscored the human cost of a prolonged recruitment dispute shaped by allegations of corruption, repeated litigation and changing government positions.
The judgment ultimately makes clear that the desire to protect candidates cannot override the requirement of a lawful and fair selection process. Where appointments rest on recruitment already invalidated for serious wrongdoing, a subsequent legislative measure cannot, by itself, restore their legal standing.