Supreme Court strikes down Karnataka law protecting tainted appointments, questions High Court ruling

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022, which validated around 191 appointments that had earlier been cancelled over allegations of corruption and nepotism [Srinavasa T v State of Karnataka and Others]

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran held that the 2022 law was unconstitutional, as the State legislature could not overturn the cancellation of these appointments after the decision had been upheld by constitutional courts.

Having set aside the 2022 law, the Court ruled that the appointments made pursuant to the tainted recruitment "will also come to an end."

“We have no doubt in our minds that the subject legislation is unconstitutional,” the Court ruled.

The Court declined to order fresh recruitment to these posts under the old rules. Instead, it directed the Karnataka government to notify existing Group A and B vacancies under the current recruitment rules.

However, in a partial relief, the Court ordered age relaxation for untainted candidates and those who had approached the Court and Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT).

The Court passed the judgment on appeals filed by Srinivasa T and others against two Karnataka High Court orders.

The Court expressed “a little bit of surprise and a lot more alarm” at the Karnataka High Court’s handling of petitions that had challenged the enactment.

“We cannot but record, a little bit of surprise and a lot more alarm, insofar as the impugned judgments are concerned. The PIL was cursorily dealt with, and the later Writ Petition was also dealt with in a similar manner, throwing to winds every tenet of law; upholding an enactment clearly beyond the scope of the powers conferred on the law-making authority and bordering on the absurd,” the bench said.

The dispute pertained to a November 3, 2011 notification for recruitment to 362 Group A and B posts.

A CID inquiry revealed gross manipulation, corruption and nepotism involving the Karnataka Public Service Commission, leading the State to cancel the recruitment.

Although the KAT initially quashed the cancellation, the High Court upheld the decision to cancel the recruitment.

The irregularities recorded included communications between candidates and commission members, identical interview marks awarded to candidates without objective individual assessment, and replacement of a digital video recorder to destroy evidence.

A subsequent attempt to resume recruitment from the written examination results stage also failed, with the High Court finding serious irregularities in the evaluation of answer scripts.

Nevertheless, the Karnataka legislature enacted the 2022 law reviving the selection. 191 candidates received appointments under it, including 14 found tainted by the CID.

The High Court in 2022 dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the legislation. Relying on that dismissal, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) declined interim relief in a separate challenge brought by unsuccessful candidates. The High Court subsequently rejected their challenge to that refusal, following its earlier order.

The top court questioned the conduct of the individual who had filed the PIL before the High Court but had not properly pursued the subsequent challenge before it.

The bench observed that the proceedings revealed an attempt by an unconnected individual to stultify a valid challenge. It added that a constitutional court could examine a substantial challenge even without the original petitioner’s participation.

A public interest litigant could not withdraw proceedings as a matter of right without the court’s permission, it added.

The judgment also criticised Karnataka government's changing positions on the recruitment.

“When the winds of politics change direction, it is the common man, who gets caught in the storm," the Court said.

It noted that a recruitment initiated in 2011 remained unresolved, leaving aspirants overage and the selected candidates facing the loss of employment.

“It is the shifting stances of the State, depending on the hues and colours in the changing times, we criticised at the outset,” it observed.

Rejecting pleas to protect the selected candidates on equitable grounds, the Court said the recruitment had been invalidated for corruption and nepotism, rather than a mere procedural defect.

“There could be no equity, insofar as the selected candidates are concerned, especially the selection being based on a recruitment which is declared as tainted by the Constitutional Courts and the appointment having been effectuated based on a stillborn legislation; the Act of 2022," the bench said.

The Court held that the legislature cannot nullify judgments upholding the cancellation simply by enacting a new law. Drawing on precedents, it distinguished permissible retrospective legislation by which the basis of a judicial decision is removed and those legislations which directly annul a final judgment.

The Court rejected the justification offered in the legislation for protecting the selected candidates, observing that the recruitment had already been held tainted by corruption and nepotism.

“The lofty ideal stated in the legislation of providing justice to the 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers falls flat for reason of the recruitment itself having been found tainted with corruption and nepotism by the High Court, which decision was upheld by this Court in a Civil Appeal,” it said.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Karnataka, conceded that the legislation could not be supported.

Senior Advocates C A Sundram and Anand Sanjay M Nuli appeared for the successful candidates, seeking to sustain the legislation and protect their appointments on equitable grounds.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the appellants.

[Read Judgment]