The Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and appointment of 2011 batch Gazettedprobationers) Act, 2022.

KARNATAKA ACT NO. 14 OF 2022 
 
 
 
 
THE KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES (VALIDATION OF SELECTION AND 
APPOINTMENT OF 2011 BATCH GAZETTED PROBATIONERS)  ACT, 2022 
 
 
Arrangement of Sections 
 
Sections: 
1. Short title and commencement 
2. Definitions 
3. Validation of selection of 2011 batch Gazetted Probationers 
4. Power to remove difficulties 
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS 
  
  
Act 14 OF 2022  Whereas in Notification dated 03.11.2011, applications were 
invited by the Karnataka Public Service Commission from eligible candidates 
for filling up of 362 Group -A and Group-B posts. The Preliminary Examination 
was conducted on 22.04.2012. The main examination was held from 
15.12.2012 to 06.01.2 013. Result of the examination, was published on 
21.03.2013. 
Whereas Karnataka Public Service Commission had conducted the 
interviews of qualified candidates from 07.05.02013 to 27.05.2013. When the 
Viva-Voce had been conducted, a candidate by name Dr. Myt hri H.P.S. had 
made a complaint to the then Advocate General on 28.05.2013, in this process, 
it was alleged that she [Dr. Mythri H.P.S] was eliminated and the candidate 
below her, was selected to the post of the Assistant Commissioner. She also 
alleged tha t demands were made by Dr. Mangala Sridhar, Member, KPSC to 
pay bribe in order to ensure her selection.  
Whereas pursuant thereto, a FIR was registered in the Vidhana Soudha 
Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 120 -B, 418, 4230, 465 of 
IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Government, 
by order dated 27.06.2013, directed the investigation to be conducted by the 
C.I.D. In furtherance, the C.I.D. after investigation had submitted a 
preliminary/interim report on 10.09.2013 
Whereas based on the interim report, the Government issued 
Government Order dated 15.10.2013/14.08.2014 cancelling the results of the 
main competitive examination as also the Viva -Voce and directing the 
Karnataka Public Service Commission to revaluate the answer script of the 
main written examination and to conduct Viva -Voce, strictly in accordance 
with the recommendations of  HOTA Committee. 
Whereas in the meantime some of the candidates had challenged the 
action of the Government, by order dated 15.10 .2013, by filing Applications 
before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Slowly, all the affected 
candidates preferred applications before the Tribunal and the Tribunal granted 
an „interim order‟ directing the State Government  not to notify for the „36 2 
posts‟ which was a subject matter of the 2011 Selection List, till the disposal of 
the applications. 
Whereas during the pendency of the proceedings before the Karnataka 
Administrative Tribunal, CID had submitted its final report and in its „final 
report‟ had concluded that the officials, who are the then Member of the 
Karnataka Public Service Commission shown as Accused Nos. 9 to 16 had 
entered into criminal conspiracy and had misused the official machinery to do 
favours for candidates seeking to be appoi nted as Group -A and B employees 
under the 2011 Notification. The said 8 Accused persons have obtained illegal 
gratifications from various candidates and had misused their office to grant 
appointments for such illegal gratification and thereby had committed  the 
offences under Sections 120 -B, 166, 167 of IPC R/w Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 
(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 37 of IPC. 
Whereas it is pertinent to note here that; although the names of certain 
candidates find a place in the „charge sheet‟ for having maintained telephonic 
contact with some of the Accused, none of them have, themselves been names 
as Accused either in the charge sheet or in the FIR. 
Whereas the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, in the meantime, had 
proceeded to hear th e matter on merit. After hearing the matter, the Tribunal 
by its order dated 19.10.2016, allowed the Applications and quashed the 
Government Order dated 14.08.2014. The Tribunal thereafter directed the 
State of Karnataka to issue orders of appointment to t he Applicants in terms of 
the provisions of Rule 11(3) of „1997‟ Rules, within a period of two months from 
the date receipt of the copy of the order.  
Whereas a perusal of the said charge sheet would show that, none of the 
candidates who are either selecte d or had participated in the selection process 
have been named as Accused persons. The gist of the charge sheet filed by the 
C.I.D discloses that there is a commission of offence of criminal conspiracy by 
the Chairman, Members and staff and some middlemen to favour certain 
candidates who are otherwise ineligible or less meritorious by accepting illegal 
gratifications. Who these candidates are, is not pointedly forthcoming in the 
report of the C.I.D.  
Whereas where these candidates have paid illegal gratific ation to the 
Members or the middlemen is also not very forthcoming in the charge sheet. In 
any view of the matter, this is an aspect to be established before the Court of 
law after a full fledged trial. In pursuance to this order dated 17.03.2017 the 
State Government has directed Heads of Departments to issue appointed after 
verification procedure. Whereas Director, Municipal Administration issued 
appointment order to 18 candidates. On 27.03.2017on the 03.04.2017 the 
RDPR Department has issued appointment orders to 60 candidates.    
Whereas this apart, prima -facie the CID Report does not appear to point 
fingers at any of the other candidates who have participated in the Selection 
process and form part of the select list. Therefore, the present issue throws u p 
a very pertinent question as to what should be the fate of those candidates 
against whom there is no allegation or against whom nobody can point a finger 
of doubt or suspicion. As is being pointed out, can these candidates who have 
apparently undergone c ertain struggle/put in efforts to participate and get 
through the selection process, be punished for no fault of theirs (without 
establishing their involvement), by holding that the entire list is vitiated due to 
the conduct of a few persons, if at all, an y aspersions can be cast against their 
conduct.  
Whereas mere allegations of malpractice and commission of offences, 
would not be sufficient or justify the end result of cancelling the appointments 
in respect of all the candidates. It is only after the due  process of law; is 
undertaken and when an enquiry or investigation reaches its logical 
conclusion, which is when it is so established and approval made by a Court of 
the land, can it be said that the time is right to penalize the delinquent or the 
offender.  
Whereas the State has initiated (on finding some prima facie materials) 
and awaited these proceedings to reach their logical and final conclusion; 
failing which, it would defeat the very ends of justice to penalize the candidates 
who find a place in se lect list. No member of KPSC or no Candidates has been 
proved guilty of allegation or convicted in any court of trial.   
In writ Petition 13617 -13627/2017 Renukambike R and Others Vs the 
State of Karnataka challenging the order of KAT Hon;ble Division Bench of 
High Court on 09.03.2018 allowed the writ petition and upheld the G.O. Dated 
04.08.2014.  
date 09.03.2018 as held as follows;- 
“52. In the light of above discussion, we are of the considered view 
that, the Administrative Tribunal erred in substituting its opinion 
and therefore, the impugned judgment quashing State 
Government‟s  decision to withdraw the is wholly unsusta inable. 
Consequently, direction  to the State Government to issue 
appointment orders to the selected candidates is also rendered 
unsustainable in law.” 
X X X 
55. Resultantly, these writ petitions eminently deserve to be 
allowed and accordingly: 
a) Writ Pet itions No. 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,  6395/2017 c/w 6432/2014 to 6444/2014 
&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, C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ n¥Ààt ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 139 ¸ÉïÉÆøÉà  2016 dated 
17.03.2017, issued by  Deputy Secretary, DPAR (Services), 
Government of Karnataka, is quashed; 
d) Official Memorandum, C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£À ¸ÀASÉå: 19457 rJAJ 32 PÉJAJJ¸ï  
2016-17 dated 27.03.2017, issued by Director, Municipal 
Administration, Bengaluru, is quashed; 
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, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 53 ¸ÉïÉÆøÉà  2014, 
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, dated 14.08.2014, withdrawing requisitions issued to 
KPSC for selection of Gazetted Probationers for 2011, and to close 
selection process, is sustained. 
“56. In view of disposal of these writ petitions, I.A.No. 16/2017 (in 
W.Ps. No. 13617 -13627/2017 & 14529/2017) for  impleadment, 
filed by the applicants claiming to be candidates in 2011 selection, 
does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.” 
 
In I.A.No. 4/2018 in Writ Petitions No. 13617 -13627/2017Renukambike 
R and Others Vs State The Hon‟ble Hi gh Court in Division bench has held on 
13th July 2018 as follows; 
“30. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the point No. (i) in 
the affirmative and record our finding that results of written 
examination are vitiated.”  
Re-Point (ii): Whether fresh viva voce can be ordered, if 
the evaluation of answer scripts are not vitiated? 
31. While answering point No. (i), we have recorded that the result 
of written examination are vitiated. In view of the said finding, we 
answer this point in the negative and record that fresh „viva voce‟ 
cannot be ordered on the basis of existing results of written 
examination.  
  Re-Point (iii): Whether fresh evaluation of answer 
scripts can be ordered, if written examination results are 
vitiated? 
32. While considering this option, it is necessary to take note 
following aspects: 
 that recruitment process in question is for Gazetted 
Probationers, 2011; 
  that the preliminary written examination was 
conducted on 22.04.2012; 
 that the written examination (main) was conducted 
between 15.12.2012 to 06.01.2013; 
 reckoned from any angle, nearly 8 years have elapsed 
from the designated year of recruitment and 5 1/2  
years from the date of written examination  
33. Thus, keeping in view the facts of this case and the time lapse, 
we are of t he clear opinion that, it is not a fit case to direct re -
evaluation of answer scripts.  
On 13.08.2018: New SLP was filed by Mythri VS the State of 
Karnataka bearing the dairy no:  30195/2018 before Supreme 
Court challenging the Hon‟ble division bench high court order 
dated 13.07.2018 and Supreme Court ordered as follows:- 
we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment 
and order. concequently the SLP is dismissed.” 
 
Whereas the State Government filed a new SLP (Dairy No -21729/2019) 
before the Ho n‟ble Supreme Court challenging the high court order dated 
13.07.2018, The Hon‟ble Supreme Court. In this case has ordered as follows:- 
“We are not inclined to interfere with impugned o rder(s) passed by 
the High Court the SLP are accordingly, dismissed.” 
 Pending interlocutory applications forms are disposed”.  
 Having examined the above judgments it is apparent that the Hon‟ble 
High Court has relied in arriving at such decision based on the interim report 
of the CID. Unless the tainted candidates are segre gated and a detail 
investigation are held and proved guilty in the court of law after due trail it may 
not be proper to hold the examination as vitiated. Whereas in respect of 
untainted candidates their sincere efforts has to be respected and their 
legitimate expectation for having appointed shall be honoured.    
 It was also bound duty on the State Legislature under article 323(2) of 
the Constitution to annul the withdrawal of requisition made to KPSC before 
issue of Government order dated 15.10.2013 on th e basis of an interim 
investigation report of the CID.       
 It is  apparent from para 45 of the High Court judgment in Renukambe 
Vs. State of Karnataka case dated 9th March 2018 which reads as follows; 
“45. In the light of facts recorded by the CID in it ‟s investigation 
report, we are of the view that there is no error in exercise of their 
powers under the transaction of business by the State Government 
in withdrawing the requisition given to the State Public Service 
Commission.”  
Here, in this case the v ery basis of the judgments in the vitiating the 
examination process based on the CID interim report itself is misleading. 
Hence, the Government Orders dated 15.10.2013 and 14.08.2014 respectively 
suffer from severe procedural infirmity and have no sanctity  in the eyes of law 
especially in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Babu 
Varghese v. Kerala State Bar Council reported in 1999(3) SCC 422, which 
reads as follows:- 
 “It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a 
particular act is prescribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that 
manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in 
Taylor VS Taylor (1875) 1Ch.D 426 which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir 
Ahmad VS King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 who stated as under: 
“Where a power is given to do certain thing in a certain way, the thing in 
a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.” 
 Now therefore, it is considered necessary to bring a legislati on to annul 
the action taken by the previous Government without proper approval of the 
State Legislature  and thereby as a resultant the decision of the Hon‟ble High 
Court in this regard. 
 Whereas the charges made on the candidates in the trail court has 
reached the logical end and no member of KPSC or candidate has been proved 
guilty of any offence or convicted in any court of trail.  
It is also pertinent to State that the decision of the High C ourt leads to 
violation of the Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. 
 Whereas in view of all above matters it is considered necessary to 
validate the recruitment orders issued by the Government to 2011 Gazetted 
probationers and to legalise the selection list. 
 Hence, the Bill. 
 
[L.A. Bill No. 04 of 2022, File No. SAMVYASHAE  02 SHASANA 2022]  
[Entry  41  of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.]  
[Published in Karnataka Gazette Extra -ordinary No. 104 in part -IVA dated: 
14.03.2022] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KARNATAKA ACT NO. 14 OF 2022 
 
(First Published in the Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary on the 14th day of March, 2022) 
 
 
 
THE KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES (VALIDATION OF SELECTION AND 
APPOINTMENT OF 2011 BATCH GAZETTED PROBATIONERS)  ACT, 2022 
 
 
(Received the assent of Governor on the 12th day of March, 2022) 
 
Whereas, in Notification dated 03.11.2011, applications were invited by 
the Karnataka Public Service Commission from eligible candidates for filling up 
of 362 Group -A and Group -B posts. The Preliminary Examination was 
conducted on 22.04.2012. The main examination was held from 15.12.2012 to 
06.01.2013. Result of the examination was published on 21.03.2013. 
Whereas, the Karnataka Public Service Commission had conducted the 
interviews of qualified candidates from 07 -05-2013 to 27 -05-2013.  When the 
Viva-voce had been  conducted, a candidate by name Dr.Mythri.H.P.S. made a 
complaint before the then, Advocate General on 28 -05-2013 alleging that in 
this process, she (Dr.Mythri.H.P.S) was eliminated and the candidate below her 
was selected to the post of the Assistant Comm issioner. She has also alleged 
that demands were made by Smt. Dr.Mangala Sridhar, Member, KPSC in order 
to ensure her selection.  
Whereas, pursuant thereto, a FIR was registered in Crime no 28/2013 
dated 25 -06-2013 before the Vidhana Soudha police station,  Bengaluru 
alleging for the offences punishable under Section 341,120 -B,418,423, 465 of 
Indian Penal code and under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988. The Government by its order dated 27 -06-2013 directed the CID to 
conduct the investigat ion. The CID after investigation had submitted a 
preliminary/interim report on 10.09.2013 and submitted chargesheet before 
the Hon‟ble XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions (Special Court )which was 
registered as Special Case No.311 /2014.  
Whereas, based on the interim report, the Government issued 
Government Order dated 15.10.2013/14.08.2014 cancelling the results of the 
main competitive examination and also the Viva-Voce, directing the Karnataka 
Public Service Commission to revaluate the answer sc ript of the main written 
examination and to conduct Viva -Voce strictly in accordan ce with the 
recommendations of HOTA Committee. 
Whereas, in the meantime some of the candidates had challenged the 
action of the Government  order dated 15.10.2013 by filing a pplications before 
the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Gradually, all the affected candidates 
preferred applications before the Tribunal and the Tribunal granted an „interim 
order‟ directing the State Government not to notify for the „362 posts‟ which 
was a subject ma tter of the 2011 Selection List  till the disposal of the 
applications. 
Whereas, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Karnataka 
Administrative Tribunal, CID had submitted its final report and in its „final 
report‟ had concluded th at the officials, who are the then Member of the 
Karnataka Public Service Commission shown as Accused Nos. 9 to 16 had 
entered into criminal conspiracy and had misused the official machinery to do 
favours for candidates seeking to be appointed as Group -A and B employees 
under the 2011 Notification. The said 8 Accused persons have obtained illegal 
gratifications from various candidates and had misused their office to grant 
appointments for such illegal gratification and thereby had committed the 
offences punishable under Sections120-B, 166, 167 of Indian Penal Code R/w 
Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 
37 of Indian Penal Code . 
Whereas, it is pertinent to note here that,  although the names of certain 
candidates find a place in the „charge sheet‟ for having maintained telephonic 
contact with some of the Accused, none of them have, themselves been named  
as Accused either in the charge sheet or in the FIR. 
Whereas, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunalin the meantime,  had 
proceeded to hear the matter on merit. After hearing the matter, the Tribunal 
by its order dated 19.10.2016, allowed the Applications and quashed the 
Government Order dated 14.08.2014. The Tribunal thereafter directed the 
State of Karnataka to issue orders of appointment to the Applicants in terms of 
the provisions of Rule 11(3) of „1997‟ Rules, within a period of two months from 
the date of receipt of the copy of the order.  
Whereas, a perusal of the said charge sheet would show that, none of the 
candidates who are either selected or had participated in the selection process 
have been named as Accused persons. The gist of the charge sheet filed by the 
C.I.D discloses that there is a commission of offence of criminal conspiracy by  
the Chairman, Members,  staff and some middlemen to favour certain 
candidates who are otherwise ineligible or less meritorious by accepting illegal 
gratifications. The name of these candidates is not forthcoming in the report of 
the C.I.D.  
Whereas, these candidates alleged to h ave paid illegal gratification to the 
Members or the middlemen is also not forthcoming in the charge sheet. In view 
of the matter, this is an aspect to be established before the Court of law after a 
full fledged trial. In pursuance to this order dated 17.0 3.2017, the State 
Government has directed Heads of Departments to issue Appointment Order 
after completion  of procedure of verification. Whereas, Director, Municipal 
Administration issued appointment order to 18 candidates. On 27.03.2017 and 
on  03.04.201 7 the RDPR Department has issued appointment orders to 60 
candidates.    
Whereas,apart from the aforesaid allegation, prima -facie the CID Report 
does not appear to point fingers at any of the other candidates who have 
participated in the Selection process and form part of the selection list. 
Therefore, the present issue throws up a very pertinent question as to what 
should be the fate of those candidates against whom there is no allegation and 
no elements of doubt or suspicion. A relevant question arises as  to can these 
candidates who have apparently undergone certain struggle and put in efforts 
to participate and get through the selection process, be punished for their no 
fault (without establishing their involvement), by holding that the entire list is 
vitiated due to the conduct of a few persons, if at all, any aspersions can be 
cast against their conduct.  
Whereas, mere allegations of malpractice and commission of alleged 
offences, would not be sufficient to justify the end result of cancelling the 
appointments in respect of all the candidates. It is only after the due process of 
law is undertaken by way of an enquiry or investigation reaches its logical 
conclusion if it is so established and proved before Court of Law, then it be said 
that the time is right to penalize the delinquent or the offender.  
Whereas, the State has initiated (on finding some prima facie materials) 
and awaited these proceedings to reach their logical and final conclusion failing 
which, it would defeat the very ends of justice to penalize the candidates who 
find a place in selection list. No member of KPSC or no Candidates have been 
proved guilty of alleged offences or are convicted in any court of trial.   
In writ Petitions bearing Nos.13617 -13627/2017 in case of 
Smt.Renukambike R and Others Vs the State of Karnataka challenging the 
order of KAT,the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru on 09.03.2018 
allowed the writ petitions and upheld the G.O. dated 14.08.2014 and held as 
under; 
“52. In the light of above discussi on, we are of the considered view 
that, the Administrative Tribunal erred in substituting its opinion 
and therefore, the impugned judgment quashing State 
Government‟s  decision to withdraw the is wholly unsustainable. 
Consequently, direction to the State G overnment to issue 
appointment orders to the selected candidates is also rendered 
unsustainable in law.” 
 
 
 
X X X 
55. Resultantly, these writ petitions eminently deserve to be 
allowed and accordingly: 
a) Writ Petitions No. 13617 -13627/2017 & 14529/2017 and wr it 
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,  6395/2017 c/w 6432/2014 to 6444/2014 
&6598/2014, 7464/2014, 7941/2014 to 7946/2014, 7 950/2014 
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, C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ n¥Ààt ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 139 ¸ÉïÉÆøÉà  2016 dated 
17.03.2017, issued by  Deputy Secretary, DPAR (Services), 
Government of Karnataka, is quashed; 
d) Official Memorandum, C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£À ¸ÀASÉå: 19457 rJAJ 32 PÉJAJJ¸ï  
2016-17 dated 27.03.2017, issued by Director, Municipal 
Administration, Bengaluru, is quashed; 
e) All orders of appointment/s issued pu rsuant to FInal Select List 
dated 21.03.2014 prepared by KPSC are declared illegal and shall 
stand quashed; and 
f) Government Order , ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 53 ¸ÉïÉÆøÉà 2014, 
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, dated 14.08.2014, withdrawing requisitions issued to 
KPSC for selection of Gazetted Probationers for 2011, and to close 
selection process, is sustained. 
“56. In view of disposal of these writ petitions, I.A.No. 16/2017 (in 
W.Ps. No. 13617 -13627/2017 & 14529/2017) for impleadment, 
filed by the applicants claiming to be candidates in 2011 selection, 
does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.” 
In I.A.No. 4/2018 in Writ Petitions No. 13617-13627/2017 Renukambike 
R and Others Vs State The Hon‟ble High Court in Division bench has held on  
13th July 2018 as follows; 
“30. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the point No. (i) in 
the affirmative and record our finding that results of written 
examination are vitiated.”  
Re-Point (ii): Whether fresh viva voce can be ordered, if 
the evaluation of answer scripts are not vitiated? 
31. While answering point No. (i), we have recorded that the result 
of written examination are vitiated. In view of the said finding, we 
answer this point in the negative and record that fresh „viva voce‟ 
cannot be ordered on  the basis of existing results of written 
examination.  
  Re-Point (iii): Whether fresh evaluation of answer 
scripts can be ordered, if written examination results are 
vitiated? 
32. While considering this option, it is necessary to take note 
following aspects: 
 that recruitment process in question is for Gazetted 
Probationers, 2011; 
  that the preliminary written examination was 
conducted on 22.04.2012; 
 that the written examination (main) was conducted 
between 15.12.2012 to 06.01.2013; 
 reckoned from any angle , nearly 8 years have elapsed 
from the designated year of recruitment and 5 1/2  
years from the date of written examination  
33. Thus, keeping in view the facts of this case and the time lapse, 
we are of the clear opinion that, it is not a fit case to dire ct re -
evaluation of answer scripts.  
On 13.08.2018: New SLP was filed by Mythri VS the State of 
Karnataka bearing the dairy no:  30195/2018 before Supreme 
Court challenging the Hon‟ble division bench high court order 
dated 13.07.2018 and Supreme Court ordered as follows:- 
we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and 
order. consequently the SLP is dismissed.” 
 
Whereas the state Government filed a new SLP (Dairy No -21729/2019) 
before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court challenging the high court order dated 
13.07.2018, The Hon‟ble Supreme Court. In this case has ordered as follows:- 
“We are not inclined to interfere with impugned odre(s) passed 
by the High Court the SLP are accordingly, dismissed.” 
 Pending interlocutory applications forms are disposed”.  
 Having examined the above judgments it is apparent that the Hon‟ble 
High Court has relied in arriving at such decision based on the interim report 
of the CID. Unless the tainted candidates are segregated and a detail 
investigation are held and proved guilty in the court of law after due trail it may 
not be proper to hold the examination as vitiated. Whereas in respect of 
untainted candidates their sincere efforts has to be respected and their 
legitimate expectation for having appointed shall be honoured.    
 It was also bound duty on the State Legislature under article 323(2) of 
the Constitution to annul the withdrawal of requisition made to KPSC before 
issue of Government order dated 15.10.2013 on the basis of an interim 
investigation report of the CID.       
It is  apparent from para 45 of the High Court judgment in Renukambe 
Vs. State of Karnataka case dated 9 th March 2018 which reads as 
follows; 
“45. In the light of facts recorded by the CID in it‟s investigation 
report, we are of the view that there is no error in exercise of their 
powers under the transaction of business by the State Government 
in withdrawing the requisition given to the State Public Service 
Commission.”  
Here, in this case the very basis of the judgments in the vitiating the 
examination process based on the CID interim report itself is misleading. 
Hence, the Government Orders dated 15.10.2013 and 14.08.2014 respectively 
suffer from severe procedural infirmity and have no sanctity in the eyes of law 
especially in view of the rat io laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Babu 
Varghese v. Kerala State Bar Council reported in 1999(3) SCC 422, which 
reads as follows:- 
 “It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a 
particular act is prescribed under a ny Statute, the act must be done in that 
manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in 
Taylor VS Taylor (1875) 1Ch.D 426 which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir 
Ahmad VS King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 who stated as under: 
“Where a power is given to do certain thing in a certain way, the thing in 
a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.” 
 Now therefore, it is considered necessary to bring a legislation to annul 
the action taken by the previous Governmen t without proper approval of the 
State Legislature and thereby as a resultant the decision of the Hon‟ble High 
Court in this regard. 
 Whereas the charges made on the candidates in the trail court has 
reached the logical end and no member of K arnataka Public Service 
Commission or candidate has been proved guilty of any offence or convicted in 
any court of trail. It is also pertinent to State that the decision of the High 
Court leads to violation of the Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. 
 Whereas in view of all above matters it is considered necessary to 
validate the recruitment orders issued by the Government to 2011 Gazetted 
probationers and to legalise the selection list. 
 
Now therefore, be it enacted by the Karnataka St ate Legislature in the 
seventy third year of the Republic of India as follows:- 
1. Short title and commencement. -(1) This Act may be called the 
Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and appointment of 2011 
batch Gazettedprobationers) Act, 2022. 
(2) It shall come into force at once. 
 
2. Definitions.-(1) In this Act unless the context otherwise requires,- 
 “2011 batch Gazetted probationers” means candidates selected in the 
2011 batch Gazettedprobationers selection list by the Karnataka Public Service 
Commission; 
(2) Other words and expressions used but not defined shall have the 
same meaning as defined in the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978. 
  
3. Validation of s election of 20 11 batch Gazetted Probationers. -
Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decrees or  order of any 
court, Tribunal or Authority to the contrary and in order to provide Justice to 
the 2011 batch Gazetted probationers for their no fault, it is hereby enacted as 
follows:- 
(a) 2011 batch Gazettedprobationers selection made by the K arnataka 
Public Service Commission shall be valid in accordance with law; 
(b) All orders issued on 15.10.2013 and 14.08.2014 by the State 
Government withdrawing the recruitment process of 2011 batch 
Gazetted probationers shall stand cancelled. 
(c) The State Government shall take immediate steps to issue 
appointment orders to 2011 batch Gazetted probationersas per the 
Karnataka Public Service Commission selection list. 
(d) All appointments of 2011 batch Gazatted Probationers shall be within 
the extent and in accordance with the provisions of rule 18 of the 
Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 . The 
seniority of the 2011 batch Gazatted Probationers shall come into 
force on their date of report to the respective post in accordance with 
the provisions of this Act. The 2011 batch Gazatted Probationers shall 
not be eligible for the retrospective seniority at any time. The 2011 
batch Gazatted Probationers  shall not claim seniority retrospectively 
as matter of right at any time. 
(e) No suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or confirmed in any 
court or any Tribunal or before any Authority for the review of any 
such appointment made in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 
(f) No court shall enforce any decree or order to direct the review of any 
such cases contrary to the provisions of this Act. 
 
4. Power to remove difficulties. -If any difficulty arises in giving 
effect to the provisions of this Act, the State Government may by General or 
Special order make such provisions as appears it to be necessary or expedient 
to remove difficulty. 
 
 
The above translation of ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಿವಿಲ್ ಸೇವೆಗಳ (2011ನೇ ಸಾಲಿನ ಗೆಜೆಟೆಡ್ 
ಪ್ರ ೊ ಬೇಷನರರ ಆಯ್ಕ ೆ ಮತ್ತ ು ನೇಮಕಾತಿಯ ಸಿಿಂಧುಗೊಳಿಸುವಿಕೆ) ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ, 2022  (2022 ರ 
ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : 14) be published in the official Gazette under clause (3) 
of Article 348 of the Constitution of India. 
 
 
THAAWARCHAND   GEHLOT 
GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA 
 
 
By Order and in the name of 
the Governor of Karnataka, 
 
 
 
G.SRIDHAR 
Secretary to Government 
Department of Parliamentary 
Affairs and Legislation 
 

‹ Prev All Karnataka acts Next ›