IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS … · 2016. 6. 30. · in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru dated this the 21 st day of june 2016 present the hon’ble

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


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.)


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


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.)


Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560001

2. The Principal Secretary Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DPAR) Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560001. …RESPONDENTS


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


471, 420 IPC

4) Accused Sri K Narasimha is


468 R/w 120(b) IPC

5) Accused Sri P Gopi Krishna is


471 R/w 120(b) IPC

6) Accused Sri M B Banakar is


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 PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀÄªÀjUÉ,

ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ 21.05.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, ¹§âA¢

ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ E¯ÁSÉ EªÀjUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«UÀ¼À PÀqÉUÉ UÀªÀÄ£À

¸É¼É�AiÀÄ¯ÁVzÉ.

1998, 1999 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2004 UÉeÉmÉ�qï ¥ÉÇ�æ¨ÉÃµÀ£Àgïì ºÀÅzÉÝUÀ�¼À DAiÀÉÄÌ

¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉ¢zÉ J£Àß¯ÁzÀ CPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ

¢£ÁAPÀ 20.04.2012gÀ DzÉÃ±À�zÀ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆ�ÃPÀ¸ÉÃªÁ DAiÉÆ�ÃUÀªÀÅ 1998,

1999 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2004£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è UÉeÉ�mÉqï ¥ÉÇ�æ¨ÉÃµÀ£Àgïì ºÀÅzÉÝUÀ�½UÉ £ÀqÉ¹zÀ DAiÉÄÌ

¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸ÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄÃ�®ÌAqÀ DAiÀÉÄÌ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ°è£À

DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjµÀÌj¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¤zÉÃð�±À£À ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä

ªÀÄ£À«UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À®Ä D¸ÀàzÀ«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

(qÁ�. ªÀÄAUÀ¼À f.J¸ï.) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð

¹§âA¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ E¯ÁSÉ

(¸É�ÃªÁ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ-1) EªÀjUÉ, ²�æÃ ±À«ÄÃgÀ PÀªÀÄ¯ÁPÀgÀ UÁAªÀPÀgÀ,

ªÀÄ£É ¸ÀASÉåB 364, 23£ÉÃ ¨ÁèPï, J¸ï.JªÀÄ.L.f.©.

2£ÉÃ ªÀÄºÀr, AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ 5£ÉÃ 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 PÁtÂ¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 31-1-1995 ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉÃ±À�zÀ°è

»AzÀÄ½zÀ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀ «ÄÃ¸À¯Áw ¥ÀæªÀiÁtªÀ£ÀÄß ±ÉÃPÀ�qÁ

“50PÉÌ”“50PÉÌ”“50PÉÌ”“50PÉÌ” ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è gÁdå ¹«¯ï ¸ÉÃªÉUÀ¼À�,

- 281 -

¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£ÀzÀ°è §gÀÄªÀ ¸ÉÃªÉUÀ¼À CxÀªÁ ºÀÅzÉÝUÀ�¼À

£ÉÃªÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ°è ¨sÁgÀvÀ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀzÀ 16(4)£ÉÃ C£ÀÄZÉá�ÃzÀzÀ

¥ÀæPÁgÀ C¼ÀªÀr¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ gÉÆ�Ã¸ÀÖgï §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 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 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



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 -



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£ÉÃ dÆ£ï £ÉÃ dÆ£ï £ÉÃ dÆ£ï £ÉÃ 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/-

Documents

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS … · 2016. 6. 30. · in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru dated this the 21 st day of june 2016 present the hon’ble