AVINASH C. & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

688                       [2018]
               SUPREME COURT     6 S.C.R. 688
                              REPORTS                     [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A                            AVINASH C. & ORS.
                                       v.
                      STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
                     (Civil Appeal Nos. 3543-3555 of 2018)
B                               APRIL 04, 2018
          [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
             Service Law – Selection process – Annulment of – Allegation
      of demand of bribes from candidates – Matter arose out of
      selection conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission
C
      (KPSC) pursuant to notification for filling up posts of Group ‘A’
      and Group ‘D’ in the State – There were complaints of
      malpractices and irregularities in the conduct of examinations as
      well as interviews – FIR was lodged against Chairman, Member
      and some officials of the KPSC – On receipt of interim report of
D     CID, State Government directed annulment of evaluation of written
      examination as well as personality test – However, KPSC published
      the select list – The State withdrew the requisition for appointments
      – Order challenged by the successful candidates before Tribunal,
      which quashed the decision of the State Government and directed
      appointment of the selected candidates – High Court held that
E
      Tribunal committed error in directing appointment of persons
      validity of whose selection was seriously doubted by the
      Government – Propriety of – Held: Proper – High Court has
      referred to material on record in the form of call details between
      candidates and members of the KPSC – All the members who
F     interviewed the candidates awarded exactly the same marks to
      particular candidates – There was no objective assessment by the
      individual members – 566 candidates were awarded same marks
      which appeared to be pre-determined – Digital video recorder in
      the KPSC building was replaced to destroy evidence – No ground
      to interfere with the view of the High Court that the selection could
G
      not have been sustained – If selection is found to be tainted in any
      manner, it is always open to the concerned authority to annul such
      selection to maintain purity of the selection process – It may not
      always be necessary to segregate tainted and untainted candidates
      when the process itself is tainted – Moreover, at pre-appointment
H
                                      688
   AVINASH C. & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                           689


stage, decision to cancel the selection process can be interfered           A
only if it is patently arbitrary, malafide or illegal – In instant case,
the High Court has rightly applied these parameters and found no
case for interference with decision to annul selection.
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3543-
3555 of 2018.                                                               B
      From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2018 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in W. P. (C) Nos. 13617 to 13627 of 2017
and W.P. No.14529 of 2017.
      Devadatt Kamat, Addl. Adv. Gen., V. Giri, Guru Krishna Kumar,
Raju Ramachandran, Sajan Poovayya, Nagmohan Das, M. B. Nargund,             C
Sr. Advs., Nishanth Patil, Ms. K. Parameshwar, Pithneesh M. K.,
Prasanna Mohan, B. L. Acharya, Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, Mrinal Shankar,
Priyasarshi Banerjee, Saransh Kumar, Saransh Jain, Meka Venkatarama
Krishna, Ishwar Mohanty, Balaji Srinivasan, S. N. Bhat, V. N. Raghupathy,
Rajesh Inamdar, Javedur Rahman, Parikshit P. Angadi, Aditya Bhat,           D
P. Singh, Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Rekha Chandra Sekhar, H. Chandra
Sekhar, Vikram Phadke, Ashwin V. Kotemath, Mrs. S. Usha Reddy,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The following Order of the Court was passed :
                                 ORDER                                      E
      1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties who have entered
appearance. Having regard to the nature of the order proposed, we do
not consider it necessary to issue notice to all the parties who are not
represented.
                                                                            F
       2. The matter arises out of Selection conducted by the Karnataka
Public Service Commission (“KPSC”) pursuant to Notification dated
3.11.2011 for filling up 362 posts of the Group ‘A’ and Group ‘D’ in the
State of Karnataka. Examinations were conducted on 22.04.2012. Written
tests for mains were conducted between 15.12.2012 and 16.01.2013.
Interviews were held between 01-04-2013 and 27.05.2013.                     G
      3. There were complaints of mal-practices and irregularities in
the conduct of examinations as well as the interviews. It was inter alia
alleged that there were demands of bribes from candidates. The FIR
was lodged against Chairman, Member and some officials of the KPSC.
                                                                            H
690            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A     On receipt of the interim report of CID dated 10th September, 2013, the
      State Government on 15 th December, 2013 directed annulment of
      evaluation of written examination as well as the personality test. The
      KPSC however, published the select list. The State Government
      withdrew the requisition for appointments on 14.08.2014.
B           4. The above order was challenged by the successful candidates
      before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order
      dated 19th October, 2016 quashed the decision of the State Government
      and directed appointment of the selected candidates. Some selected
      candidates have been given appointments.
C           5. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court.
      The High Court by the impugned order set aside the order of the Tribunal.
      The High Court concluded thus:
            “55. Resultantly, these writ petitions eminently deserve to be
            allowed and accordingly:
D           a) Writ Petition Nos. 13617-13627/2017 & 14529/2017 and Writ
            Petition No. 11342/2017 are allowed;
            b) Common order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Karnataka State
            Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Applications No. 6268/2014
            to 6395/2014 c/w 6432/2014 to 6444/2014, 6446/2014 to 6459/
E           2014, 6597/2014 & 6598/2014, 7464/2014, 7941/2014 to 7946/2014,
            7950/2014 to 7966/2014, 7967/2014, 7968/2014, 7969/2014, 9112/
            2014 to 9126/2014, 9592/2014 to 9610/2014 and 8298/2015, is
            quashed.
            c) Un-Official Note, Un-Official Note No. 139 CASu 139 SaLoSa
F           2016 dated 17.3.2017, issued by Deputy Secretary, DPAR Services,
            Government of Karnataka, is quashed;
            d) Official Memorandum, Official Memorandum No. 19457 DMA
            32 KaMAS 2016-17 dated 27.03.2017, issued by Director,
            Municipal Administration, Bengaluru, is quashed;
G           e) All orders of appointment/s issued pursuant to Final Select List
            dated 21.03.2014 prepared by KPSC are declared illegal and shall
            stand quashed; and
            f) Government Order, Government Order No. CaaSuE 53 SaLoSa
            2014, Bangalore dated 14.8.2014, withdrawing requisitions issued
H
    AVINASH C. & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                                 691


       to KPSC for selection of Gazetted Probationers for 2011, and to             A
       close selection process, is sustained.”
       6. The High Court observed that appointment of ineligible,
inefficient or persons of questionable integrity has serious adverse impact
on the working of the Government and is anathema to the rule of law.
Best selection to Government service was the mandate of the                        B
Constitution. No right accrued to candidates merely by being in the select
list. Thus, the Tribunal was in error in directing appointment of persons
validity of whose selection was seriously doubted by the Government.
        7. We find that the High Court has referred to material on record
in the form of call details between candidates and members of the KPSC.            C
All the members who interviewed the candidates awarded exactly the
same marks to particular candidates. There was no objective assessment
by individual members. There appeared to be extraneous reasons in
awarding the marks. 566 candidates were awarded same marks which
appeared to be pre-determined. Digital video recorder in the KPSC
building was replaced to destroy evidence. In this view of the matter,             D
we do not find any ground to interfere with the view of the High Court
that the selection could not have been sustained. If the selection is
found to be tainted in any manner, it is always open to the concerned
authority to annul such selection to maintain purity of the selection process.
It may not always be necessary to segregate tainted and untainted                  E
candidates when the process itself is tainted. Moreover, at pre-
appointment stage, decision to cancel the selection process can be
interfered only if it is patently arbitrary, malafide or illegal. In the present
case, the High Court has rightly applied these parameters and found no
case for interference with the decision to annul the selection.
                                                                                   F
      8. Learned counsel for some of the parties submitted that the
written examination is not vitiated by any irregularity and the same can
be sustained. Interviews can be held again.
      9. Since this contention does not appear to have been raised before
the High Court we permit this contention to be now raised by either of             G
the parties by moving the High Court within two weeks from today. If
such an application is moved, the High Court may examine the same on
merits. If the High Court finds that the written examination is free from
any blemish, the High Court may consider restoration of the result of the
written examination and further selection process to be conducted. It
                                                                                   H
692                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A     will also be open to the High Court to direct re-evaluation of scripts of all
      the candidates or to sustain the cancellation of result of the written
      examination so that fresh selection can be held. We do not express any
      opinion on merits of the rival contentions which will be open to be gone
      into by the High Court. The High Court may take a decision in the matter
      at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date
B
      the High Court is moved.
            The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


      Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeals disposed of.
C




D




E




F




G




H