The Supreme Court has declared the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 unconstitutional, holding that the legislature cannot enact a law to nullify a judicial decision annulling a recruitment process vitiated by systemic corruption and nepotism. The Court set aside appointments made under the Act and directed fresh recruitment with age relaxation for untainted candidates and the appellants.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The controversy originated from a 2011 recruitment notification issued by the Karnataka Government on 03.11.2011 for 362 Group 'A' and 'B' Gazetted Probationer posts under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997. The selection process attracted 1,38,307 applications, of which 91,667 candidates appeared for the preliminary examination, 6,211 qualified for the mains, and 1,090 were called for interview.
Key Facts
- 03.11.2011: State Government issued recruitment notification for 362 posts
- 2013: On the Advocate General's advice based on a complaint, the State Government withheld publication of the final select list pending a CID inquiry
- CID inquiry findings: Revealed gross manipulations, rampant corruption, and blatant nepotism by KPSC officials; digital video recorder in KPSC building replaced to destroy evidence; 566 candidates awarded identical marks in interviews indicating no objective assessment
- 21.03.2014: State Government cancelled the entire selection list
- 46 candidates found tainted by CID; 191 candidates appointed under the 2022 Act, of which 14 were tainted
- Six appellants (including Srinivasa T.) would now be over-age for any fresh recruitment
Procedural History
- First round of litigation:
- KAT quashed the cancellation order
- PILs filed by aggrieved candidates against KAT order
- High Court affirmed the cancellation (upholding State Government's decision)
- Supreme Court dismissed SLPs in Avinash C. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3543-3555 of 2018) by order dated in 2018 (Annexure P2)
- Liberty granted to raise contention that written examination was not vitiated before High Court
- Second round of litigation:
- Interlocutory Applications filed in disposed PILs seeking restoration from written examination stage
- High Court rejected prayer by order (Annexure P3)
- Supreme Court dismissed challenges (Annexures P4 to P6)
- 2022 legislative intervention:
- Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 enacted (Annexure P7)
- 15.03.2022: Unsuccessful candidates challenged Act before KAT
- 23.03.2022: Individual writ petition filed against Act
- 21.04.2022: High Court dismissed writ petition with cryptic order
- 23.08.2022: High Court rejected interim order application in KAT proceedings
- Present appeals filed against both High Court orders
Relief Sought
The appellants sought quashing of the 2022 Act as unconstitutional, setting aside the High Court orders upholding it, and appropriate directions for fresh recruitment with age relaxation given the passage of over a decade.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State Legislature could enact a validation law to revive a recruitment process that had been annulled by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court on grounds of systemic corruption and nepotism, thereby nullifying the judgments of constitutional courts.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellants
Mr. Shyam Divan, Senior Counsel, argued that the Act of 2022 effectively nullified the decision of the Supreme Court, which is impermissible under the principle that validation legislation can only cure apparent errors or defects noticed by a constitutional court, not override a final judicial determination. He contended that the legislature cannot sit in appeal over a decision of the High Court or Supreme Court, citing a host of precedents on legislative competence and separation of powers.
For the Respondent
Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Counsel for the State, candidly submitted that the legislation could not be supported. Mr. C.A. Sundram and Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Senior Counsel for the successful candidates, feebly attempted to sustain the legislation but vigorously argued on grounds of equity for candidates not found personally tainted, contending that only KPSC officials were chargesheeted and candidates should not be penalised.
The Court's Analysis
The Court held that nothing remained to sustain the 2011 recruitment, which had been set aside not merely for procedural defects but for rampant corruption and blatant nepotism vitiating the entire selection. The Court relied on Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala (2019) 13 SCC 185, where an ordinance regularising illegally admitted medical students was struck down despite the stated objective of relieving student hardship - paralleling Karnataka's professed aim of relieving hardship to selected candidates.
The Court examined the Statements of Objects and Reasons of the 2022 Act, which noted that candidates were not arrayed as accused and relied on Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D 426 for the proposition that when something is prescribed to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. The Court rejected this reasoning, holding that the cancellation had been upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court, and the legislature lacked power to annul that cancellation.
"The lofty ideal stated in the legislation of providing justice to the 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers falls flat for reason of the recruitment itself having been found tainted with corruption and nepotism by the High Court, which decision was upheld by this Court in a Civil Appeal."
The Court cited Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara Etc. v. Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. (1970) 1 SCC 509, In re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal 1993 Supp (1) SCC 96, and S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala (2015) 4 SCC 400 for the principle that while the legislature may retrospectively amend the basis of a decision, it cannot directly annul a final judgment inter parties. The Constitution Bench in Cauvery cautioned that overriding judicial review would sound the death knell of rule of law.
The Court also rejected the plea to segregate tainted and untainted candidates, noting that the entire selection had been cancelled, the CID report did not exonerate untainted candidates, and appointments were made solely under the unconstitutional Act. The shifting stance of the State - first defending cancellation, then enacting validation - was criticised as reflecting political currents.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals. It declared the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 unconstitutional and set it aside, along with the impugned High Court orders (dated 21.04.2022 and 23.08.2022). The PIL was allowed by transposing the appellants as petitioners. The Court directed the State Government to notify fresh recruitment for vacant Group 'A' and 'B' posts under existing rules. The six appellants, untainted appointed candidates, and petitioners in pending KAT proceedings shall be granted age relaxation as a one-time opportunity. If selected, their seniority shall be only from the date of fresh appointment with no back wages or notional appointment. However, service rendered under the earlier appointment shall count for pension and retirement benefits. Interlocutory applications for impleadment and interventions were rejected.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Legislative Validation Cannot Override Judicial Annulment of Corrupt Processes
The judgment reinforces that validation legislation is permissible only to cure defects or errors identified by courts, not to resurrect a process annulled for systemic corruption. Practitioners challenging such laws must emphasise the distinction between curing a defect and nullifying a judicial finding of fact - here, the finding of "rampant corruption and blatant nepotism" vitiating the entire selection.
Equity Arguments Fail When Root Process Is Tainted
- Candidates not personally chargesheeted cannot claim equity when the selection mechanism itself is judicially declared corrupt
- The absence of individual culpability does not cleanse a process the Constitutional Courts have found fundamentally compromised
- Shifting state positions (defending cancellation, then enacting validation) undermine the legitimacy of legislative intervention
Moulded Relief Balances Finality and Fairness
- Fresh recruitment with age relaxation for affected candidates is the appropriate remedy when too much time has elapsed for process resumption
- Denial of back wages and notional seniority prevents rewarding appointments made under unconstitutional law
- Counting actual service for pension benefits protects legitimate reliance interests without legitimising the original appointment
