‘Rampant Corruption and Blatant Nepotism’: Supreme Court Declares Karnataka Law Reviving 2011 KPSC Recruitment Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional a 2022 Karnataka law that sought to validate appointments made pursuant to the 2011 recruitment conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) to Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts, holding that the recruitment had already been found to be tainted by rampant corruption and blatant nepotism.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said the legislature could not, through subsequent legislation, nullify the effect of judgments of constitutional courts that had upheld the cancellation of the recruitment.

“We have no doubt in our minds that the subject legislation is unconstitutional,” the Bench said while dealing with the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022.

Court said the recruitment had not merely suffered from an irregularity or a curable defect. The entire selection process had been found to be vitiated by corruption and nepotism, and its cancellation had already been upheld by the high court as well as the Supreme Court.

The Bench noted that the “lofty ideal” stated in the 2022 legislation of providing justice to the 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers fell flat because the recruitment itself had been found to be tainted.

Court said that once the cancellation had been upheld by the constitutional courts, the legislature could not exercise a power that effectively amounted to sitting in appeal over those judgments and reviving the recruitment through legislation.

How was the 2011 KPSC recruitment found to be tainted?

On November 3, 2011, the Karnataka Government issued a notification for recruitment to 362 Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997.

As many as 1,38,307 candidates applied for the recruitment, of whom 91,667 appeared for the preliminary examination. Of those who qualified for the mains, 6,211 candidates appeared, while 1,090 were called for interview.

In 2013, following a complaint alleging illegalities in the selection process, the State Government withheld publication of the final select list on the advice of the Advocate General and ordered an inquiry by the State CID.

The inquiry revealed gross manipulation of the recruitment process, including rampant corruption and instances of blatant nepotism involving officials of the KPSC. Based on these findings, the entire recruitment was cancelled.

The State Government admitted to the irregularities and the high court, on March 21, 2014, affirmed the cancellation of the selection list.

The matter subsequently reached the Supreme Court, which declined to interfere with the annulment of the selection carried out by the State Government and affirmed by the high court. However, it permitted some candidates to approach the high court with a contention that the written examination had not been vitiated and that the recruitment could be continued from the stage of interview.

The high court subsequently found that the irregularities in the evaluation of answer scripts were “shockingly disgraceful” and had shaken the confidence placed in the KPSC, a constitutional body expected to conduct recruitment without any taint.

The plea to resume the recruitment was rejected and the decision was again unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court.

What happened after the 2022 law?

More than a decade after the recruitment was cancelled, Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022.

Unsuccessful candidates challenged the legislation before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the high court, but their pleas were dismissed.

Of the 362 candidates selected in the original recruitment, 46 were found to be tainted. Appointment was eventually given to 191 candidates, including 14 who were found to be tainted. These appointments were made pursuant to the 2022 legislation.

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the challenges to the legislation had been dealt with by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the high court.

“We cannot but record, a little bit of surprise and a lot more alarm,” the Bench said, observing that the PIL and the subsequent writ petition had been dealt with “throwing to winds every tenet of law” and by upholding an enactment that was “clearly beyond the scope of the powers conferred on the law-making authority”.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for appellants Srinivasa T and others, argued that the 2022 Act effectively nullified the Supreme Court’s earlier decision. He submitted that a validation law could be enacted only by removing an apparent error or legal defect identified by a constitutional court and then validating actions taken under the corrected legal framework.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State, submitted that the legislation could not be supported. Senior advocates C A Sundaram and Anand Sanjay M Nuli, appearing for successful candidates, relied on grounds of equity.

No equity for appointments based on tainted recruitment

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the candidates should be allowed to retain their appointments on equitable considerations.

“Nothing remains to be looked into to sustain the recruitment of 2011 which has been set aside not merely on defect or irregularity noticed in the process, but on rampant corruption and blatant nepotism having vitiated the entire selection,” the Bench said.

Court also rejected the contention of the successful candidates that the CID prosecution had only named KPSC members and not the candidates, including those selected, and that the cognizance taken by the Special Court had subsequently been set aside by the high court.

The Bench said the fact that the prosecution had not resulted in a trial could not justify continuation of appointments that were based on the unconstitutional 2022 legislation.

It also held that once the entire selection had been cancelled, there was no scope to now segregate the allegedly tainted and untainted candidates on the basis of the CID report.

“Having found the Act of 2022 unconstitutional, we cannot but observe that the appointments made pursuant to the tainted recruitment will also come to an end,” the Bench said.

Fresh recruitment ordered, age relaxation granted

While bringing the appointments to an end, the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka Government to notify fresh recruitment for the vacant Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts under the recruitment rules presently in force.

As a one-time opportunity, candidates who had been appointed but were not found to be tainted, the six appellants before the Supreme Court and petitioners in pending proceedings before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal were directed to be granted age relaxation to participate in the fresh recruitment along with other eligible candidates.

Court clarified that candidates selected through the fresh recruitment would get seniority only from the date of their fresh appointment. They would not be entitled to back wages or notional appointment from an earlier date.

For those currently in service, if selected and appointed afresh, the period for which they had served pursuant to their earlier appointments would, however, be counted for computation of pension and retirement benefits.

Case Title: Srinivasa T & Ors Vs The State of Karnataka And Ors Etc Etc

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran 

Date of Judgment: October 29, 2026