Karnataka High Court
Sri Naveenkumara H N vs The Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 22 August, 2023
Bench: N S Gowda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF AUGUST 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.2185 OF 2023
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.2257 OF 2023,
WRIT PETITION No.4572 OF 2023
WRIT PETITION No.1748 OF 2023 (S-RES)
IN W.P.No.2185/2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . MR NATESH MANJAPPA H
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O MANJAPPA S B
R/O NO. 873, 14TH CROSS ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560086.
2 . CHETHAN JAIN H A
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O ANANTHRAJU T V
R/O MADIHALLI HOBALI
HOLABAGERE BELUR, KARNATAKA - 573 216.
... PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJA S
Location:
HIGH
(BY SMT.ANKITHA PATIL., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MS BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560001
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD
1ST FLOOR,
CAUVERY BHAVAN
K G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560001.
3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY
BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SAMPIGE ROAD,
18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560012
[email protected]
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA.R.K., AGA FOR R-1;
SMT.PADMA UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-
3 TO RE-EVALUATING THE ANSWERS/AWARD TOWARDS THE
WRONG ANSWERS IN THE QUESTION PAPER INSOFAR AS THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AS PER THE FINAL KEY
ANSWER DATED 27/12/2022 PUBLISHED ON 03/01/2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-P LIST BY NOTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTARY LIST,
IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, ETC.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
IN W.P.No.2257/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NAVEENKUMARA H N
S/O NANJE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/A D NO 13, UDDINAMALLANA HOSURE,
OOGINAHALLI POST,
KIKKERI HOBLI,
KRISHNARAJAPETE,
MANDYA DIST. -571423.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.J.M.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE (VC))
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LIMITED
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KAVERI BHAVAN, K G ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
2. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY
REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RAKSHITHA.D.J.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1(VC);
SRI.N.K.SRAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS, DIRECTION TO THE R-2 TO AWARD GRACE MARKS
FOR THE QUESTION No.15,91 AND 92 MENTIONED IN
VERSION B2 OF THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED FOR THE
POST OF ASST. ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) (KPTCL-2022) BY
DECLARING THAT THE QUESTION NO.15, 91 AND 92 ARE
WRONG, ETC.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
IN W.P.No.4572/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. CHETHAN.K.
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O BHAGAWATI,
BEHIND MIRJI PETROL BUNK,
BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572 103.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRITHVEESH.M.K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 012.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARING
THE IMPUGNED ANSWER KEY DATED:04.02.2023 AND THE
IMPUGNED MERIT LIST DATED 04.02.2023 PASSED BY THE R
No.2 (ANNEXURE-B) AS ILLEGAL, VOID AND INOPERABLE, ETC.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
IN W.P.No.17481/2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI. GIREESH PAVADASHETTI,
S/O VISHWANATH PAVADASHETTI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT HOYSALA HABITAT,
D-201, NAGENAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 064.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.J.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA.D.J., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A). DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI DECLARING THE IMPUGNED ANSWER
KEY DATED 04/02/2023 AND THE IMPUGNED MERIT LIST
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
DATED 04/02/2023 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND B AS ILLEGAL, NULL AND VOID.
(B) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE
OF THE PETITIONER ON THE BASIS OF THE FINAL ANSWER
KEY DATED 27/12/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND THE
PROVISIONAL SCORE LIST DATED 03/01/2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-P AND TO APPOINT HIM AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER
(ELECTRICAL) PURSUANT TO THE DETAILED EMPLOYMENT
NOTIFICATION DATED 01/02/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
BEARING No.KAUPRANINI/B16/21723/21-22.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 14.08.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING
ORDER
1. Writ Petition No.2185 of 2023 is filed for issuance of
a mandamus:
a. Directing respondent No.3 to re-evaluate the
answers / award towards the wrong answers in
the question papers insofar as the petitioners
are concerned, as per the final key answer
dated 27.12.2022 which was published on
03.01.2023, by notifying the supplementary
list;
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
b. Directing respondent No.3 to publish the
revised merit list as defective and
consequently, quash the same; and
c. Directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider
their claim for appointment as Assistant
Executive Engineers.
2. Writ Petition No.2257 of 2023 is filed seeking a
mandamus to be issued:
a. Directing the Karnataka Examination Authority
(hereinafter referred to as "the KEA" or "the
Authority", for brevity) to award grace marks
for question Nos.15, 91 and 92 mentioned in
Version "B2" of the examination conducted for
the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical)
(KPTCL-2022) by declaring that question
Nos.15, 91 and 92 were wrong;
b. Directing respondent No.2 to award marks for
question No.52 mentioned in Version "B2" of
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
the said examination by declaring that Options
"A" and "D" of the key answers were correct.
c. Awarding marks for question No.90 mentioned
in Version "B2" of the said examination by
declaring that option "C" is also right answer;
and
d. Directing respondent No.2 to consider the
objections filed by the petitioners on
13.01.2023 and refer the same to the Subject
Expert Committee.
3. Writ Petition No.4572 of 2023 is filed seeking:
a. Quashing of the answer keys published on
04.02.2023 and the consequential merit list
also dated 04.02.2023;
b. Issuance of a writ of mandamus to consider
the case of the petitioner on the basis of the
final answer key dated 27.12.2022 and the
consequential provisional score list dated
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
03.01.2023 for the purpose of selection and to
appoint him as an Assistant Engineer
(Electrical).
4. Writ Petition No.17481 of 2023 is filed seeking a
mandamus to be issued:
(a) Declaring the impugned answer key dated
04.02.2023 and the impugned merit list dated
04.02.2023 passed by respondent No.2 vide
Annexures-A and B as illegal, null and void;
(b) directing the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner on the basis of the final
answer key dated 27.12.2022 vide Annexure-M
and the provisional score list dated 03.01.2023
vide Annexure-P and to appoint him as
Assistant Engineer (Electrical) pursuant to the
detailed Employment Notification dated
01.02.2022 vide Annexure-D.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
5. The brief facts leading up to filing of these writ
petitions are as follows:
(a) On 01.02.2022, the Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Limited ("the KPTCL", for short)
published a Notification inviting applications for filling up
505 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The
Notification stipulated that an Aptitude Test would be
conducted and on the basis of the marks obtained in the
Aptitude Test, recruitments would be made subject to the
orders that had been issued by the State Government
regarding reservation. It was also stated that in order to
be considered for recruitment, candidates had to secure a
minimum of 35 percent of marks in the Aptitude test to be
conducted. The manner in which the Aptitude test would
be conducted and the date and time on which it was to be
conducted were to be announced subsequently.
(b) The KPTCL had entrusted the task of conducting
the aptitude test to the KEA, which is a Society established
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
by the State of Karnataka with the objective of conducting
common entrance examinations, Aptitude and such other
tests, as were necessary for the purposes of admission
into educational institutions and for recruitment.
(c) The KEA, thereafter, proceeded to issue a Note
dated 01.07.2022, whereby it stipulated that the
competitive examination for the technical test would be
conducted on 23rd and 24th of July 2022, an Aptitude Test
for the post of Junior Assistant would be conducted on 07th
of August 2022 and the Kannada Language test would also
be conducted on 07th of August of 2022.
(d) Pursuant to the said Notification, on
24.07.2022, a competitive examination for the post of
Junior Assistant (Electrical) (with which we are concerned
in this case) was conducted. This test was off-line and
was an Optical Mark Recognition ("OMR") based Aptitude
Test.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
(e) On 25.08.2022 i.e., a day after the
examination was conducted, a Press Note was issued
by the KEA, which reads as follows:
"PRESS NOTE
Provisional Answer Keys-KPTCL recruitment
exams
For recruitment of Assistant Engineers
(Electrical), Assistant Engineers (Civil), Junior
engineer (electrical) and junior engineer (civil)
competitive examination was conducted on
23-07-2022 and 24-07-2022 and for recruitment of
Junior Assistant exam was conducted on
07-08-2022. The provisional Answer Keys of all the
Papers have been published on the KEA Website
http://kea.kar.nic.in on 25-08-2022.
Objections, if any, to the published
provisional answer keys, should be submitted with
justification through e-mail:
[email protected] on or before
02-09-2022 before 5.30 pm. Candidates, while
submitting the objections; should mention name of
the post and paper, version code and question
number. Objections filed without the details of Post,
Question Number or Justifications will not be
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
considered. The decision of the subject expert
committee is final in finalizing the answer key.
Sd/-
Executive Director"
(f) As could be seen from the said Press Note,
objections, if any, to the published provisional answer keys
were invited from the candidates and the candidates were
required to submit their objections through e-mail, duly
mentioning the name of the post applied to, along with the
paper, the version code and the question paper with
regard to which they had objections. It was also made
clear that the objections filed without the aforesaid details
would not be considered. The last date for filing
objections was also stipulated as 02.09.2022. It was,
thereafter, categorically declared that the decision of the
Subject Expert Committee was final in respect of finalizing
the answer keys.
(g) It was stated by the KEA that several candidates
filed their objections to the provisional key answers which
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
were published on 25.08.2022. The KEA has also stated
that it had sent the objections raised by the candidates for
review by an expert body and thereafter, on 27.11.2022,
it published the final key answers based on the opinion of
the Expert Body.
(h) As stated above, the Press Note dated
25.08.2022 had declared that the decision of the Subject
Expert Committee was final in the matter of finalizing the
answer keys. Thus, according to the Press Note, the
revised answers keys published on 27.12.2022 was final.
(i) Pursuant to the finalized answer keys, a
provisional score list of eligible candidates was also
published on 03.01.2023 (Annexure 'N').
(j) In the objections, it has been stated by KEA that
to this provisional select list, which was released on
03.01.2023, objections were invited and it was found that
the candidates, instead of submitting objections to the
provisional score list, had submitted objections to the
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
revised key answers in huge numbers. It is stated that
about 900 objections were received, and in view of a large
number of objections received in respect of few questions,
a decision was taken to re-verify those questions.
(k) It is stated that in that review, it was found that
there was a typing error in relation to question No.35 and
a slight ambiguity in respect of question No.76, due to
which the Expert Committee decided to award grace
marks for these questions.
(j) However, in the synopsis of the arguments
submitted, it is started that on 13.01.2023, one
Sri.Siddappa K. Yandigeri had preferred WP
No.100378/2023 before the High Court at Dharwad,
seeking awarding of grace marks to question No.26, 94,
and 96 of version "B1". And similarly, other writ petitions
were filed raising objections to the final key answers
published on 27.12.2023.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
(k) It is stated that on 23.01.2023, the High Court at
Dharwad disposed of W.P. No.100378 of 2022, directing
the KEA to consider the representations filed by the
petitioner within four weeks. It is stated that in light of
these legal proceedings, and having regard to the fact that
the selection process had not yet been finalized and that a
select list had not been drawn and published and also
taking into consideration that KEA had received as many
as 900 objections to the key answers, the Authority had
decided to re-assess the entire revaluation process to
minimize hardship to the candidates.
(l) It is stated that accordingly, the entire paper was
referred to a body of Subject Experts, who, after
verification, came to the conclusion, that there was a
typing error in question No.35 and an ambiguity in
question No.76. It accordingly recommended awarding of
grace marks. On the basis of this opinion, the changes in
the form of revised key answers were incorporated and
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
their provisional merit list was published and submitted to
the KPTCL.
(m) It was stated that as per the provisional score
list dated 03.01.2023, 501 candidates were found to be
eligible as per the eligibility criteria, but after the revision
of the final key answers, 636 candidates were found to be
eligible and their names were also included in the
provisional merit list.
(m) The petitioners, being aggrieved of the revision
of the Finalized key answers, are before this Court seeking
the aforementioned reliefs.
(n) It is their contention that the KEA had,
fundamentally, no jurisdiction to review the finalized key
answers on the basis of the objections it had received, to
the provisional score list which was determined on the
basis of the marks secured. It was contended that,
admittedly, the objections had been received in respect of
the provisional key answers published on 25.08.2022 and
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
the subject experts had also finalized the key answers,
based on the objections raised pursuant to the key
answers published on 25.08.2022 and once the key
answers were finalized, there was no question of seeking a
further review of the same.
(o) It is contended that if it was permissible for the
KEA to review the finalized list based on the objections
received in January 2023, i.e., after the stipulated date of
02.09.2023, the very meaning of 'finality' as stated in the
press note would be rendered nugatory.
(p) It is contended that when the key answers were
finalized by the subject experts on consideration of the
objections raised, and consequently, it was not permissible
for either the candidates or for the KEA to once again seek
review of the key answers to refer the matter to another
body of subject experts.
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
(q) It is contended that by virtue of the revised final
answer keys, several people who were ineligible had
become eligible.
(r) Several people, who had not chosen to answer
the questions at all, were also being awarded with grace
marks and this would severely prejudice those candidates
who had answered the questions correctly.
(s) It is contended that the procedure adopted
fundamentally ensured that a person who did not know
the answer was also awarded with a mark and this
diminished the chances of a person who had correctly
answered to secure a better ranking. It is, therefore,
prayed that the entire exercise pursuant to the publication
of the final answer keys on 27.12.2022, which has
culminated in the publication of the revised final answer
keys on 04.02.2023 and the consequential, provisional
merit list of eligible candidates, would have to be quashed.
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
6. The learned counsel appearing for the KEA submits
that when the Authority received about 900 objections to
the key answers when it had called for objections to the
provisional merit list, the Authority took the view that the
matter deserves a second look and hence, in the larger
interest of all the candidates, the matter had been referred
to Subject Expert Committee, who ultimately concluded
that the there was a typing error and an ambiguity in the
answer to the 2nd question and recommended awarding of
two grace marks to all the candidates. It is contended
that only in order to ensure that no injustice was caused
to anybody, the Authority had adopted this procedure and
the procedure adopted being rational and fair, could not be
subjected to a scrutiny under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
7. It is also contended that the re-evaluation of the
decision to take a second look at the finalized answer keys
was also a result of the direction issued by this Court in
W.P. No.100378 of 2022, which directed the KEA to
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
consider the representation filed by the petitioner and
taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances,
a decision was taken which was in the interest of all the
candidates and therefore, no fault could be found with the
procedure adopted by the KEA.
8. The learned counsel for the KPTCL contended that it
merely acted upon the results of the competitive
examination conducted by the KEA and accepted the
provisional merit list published by it. It is contended that
the KPTCL had no role to play either in the matter of
conducting of the examination or in the preparation of the
provisional merit list and therefore, no fault can be
attributed to it.
9. In the light of the arguments advanced by all
concerned, the only point that would arise for
consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the
KEA possessed the power to refer the objections
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
raised by the candidates after it had already
published the finalized key answers.
10. As noted above in the recruitment notification, the
requirement was to conduct a competitive examination
and this task was entrusted to the KEA--an Authority
which had been set up with the sole objective of
conducting examinations.
11. The Examination Authority--an expert body in
conducting examinations, chose to issue a press note, in
which it stated that immediately after the examinations
were conducted on 24.08.2022 the provisional key
answers of all the papers would be published on the KEA
website on 25.08.2022 and the objections, if any, to the
published provisional answer keys would have to be
submitted with justification through e-mail on or before
02.09.2022. It was also clearly stipulated that the
candidates, while submitting their objections, were
required to mention the name of the post and paper, the
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
version code and question number in respect of which they
were filing objections. It was made clear that if these
details were not furnished, the objections would not be
considered at all.
12. Finally, it was categorically declared that the decision
of the Subject Expert Committee was final in the matter of
the finalized answer key. Thus, the answer keys that were
to be finalised after consideration of the objections raised
by the candidates before 02.09.2022 were declared to be
final by the Authority itself in its Press Note and this was
to the knowledge of all the candidates.
13. Admittedly, pursuant to the publication of the
provisional answer keys, objections, in fact, were raised by
several people and the same were referred to the Subject
Expert Committee, who accepted the objections in respect
of two questions, namely question Nos.24 and 25, and
proceeded to award grace marks to them. The Expert
Committee admittedly published a finalized answer key for
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
all the questions and by virtue of the Press Note, this
finalized answer key was final and binding.
14. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to this finalized
answer key, a provisional score list was also published on
03.01.2023 and objections were invited to the provisional
score list. Obviously, the objections that were called for
was only in respect of the placement of the candidates in
the score list and objections, if any, raised to the key
answers could not be the subject matter of consideration
since that phase was over on 02.09.2022, i.e., the last
date fixed for raising objections to the provisional answer
keys. The objections called for was to be only in relation to
the placement of the candidates on the basis of the marks
secured by them in the examination.
15. It has to be noted here that if any candidate chose
not to raise objections to the provisional key answers
published on or before 02.09.2022, he had basically
foregone his right to object to the provisional key answers
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
that had been published and had to accept the
subsequently declared finalized key answers.
16. The KEA, by entertaining the objections raised
pursuant to the provisional score list published on
03.01.2023, basically permitted the candidates to raise
objections to the key answers which had already been
finalized and published on 27.12.2022. In other words,
those persons who had not objected to the key answers
were given a second opportunity to raise objections to the
key answers contrary to the Press Note dated 25.08.2022.
17. The stand of the KEA that having regard to the large
number of objections it had received and that a direction
had been issued in W.P. No.100378 of 2023 to consider
the representation of one of the candidates, to justify its
decision to refer the matter once again to the Subject
Expert Committee, cannot be accepted at all. If the KEA
had itself declared that the answer keys that were finalized
after considering the objections received pursuant to the
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
publication of the provisional key answers, it obviously
could not embark upon a second exercise in revising the
already finalized key answers.
18. In fact, this procedure fundamentally amounts to
revising a list which had already been finalized, contrary to
the Authority's own declaration. It is, therefore, clear that
the decision of KEA to consider the objections that had
been received pursuant to releasing the provisional score
list of eligible candidates was totally without jurisdiction.
Consequentially, any revision that had been made
pursuant to the objections received after 03.01.2023,
would be of absolutely no consequence and as a further
consequence, the decision of the Subject Expert
Committee to revise the finalized answer keys by
publishing another set of finalized answer keys was non
est.
19. Thus, it will have to be held that the revised final
answer keys dated 04.02.2023 and the consequential
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
provisional merit list published on 04.02.2023, cannot be
sustained and the same would have to be quashed.
20. However, the learned counsel for the KEA put forth
the contention that the KEA, pursuant to the publication of
the finalized answer keys on 27.12.2022, had only issued
a provisional score list of eligible candidates and that the
same did not amount to preparation of a provisional merit
list.
21. This submission would have to be stated, only to be
rejected. As could be seen from the recruitment
notification, the Authority was fundamentally required to
publish a list of candidates who had secured more than
35% marks in the examination in the order of their
relative merit, as that was the prescribed percentage to be
eligible for consideration for appointment. The Authority
choosing to give the said list a nomenclature as
'provisional score list' or a 'provisional merit list' would be
of no consequence since the list published after the
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
declaration of the finalized answer keys was a list of
eligible candidates arranged in the order of their
respective merit.
22. The KEA was to conduct an examination, furnish
provisional answer keys, call for objections and on
consideration of the objections, publish a finalized set of
answer keys, on the basis of which it was required to
prepare a list of candidates who had secured marks of
more than 35%.
23. The Authority did not possess any jurisdiction to
embark upon a venture of re-evaluating the finalized
answer keys, especially on the basis of objections that had
been received after the prescribed cut-off date i.e.,
07.09.2022. The argument of the Authority cannot,
therefore, be accepted.
24. The other argument that passing of an order in W.P.
No.100378 of 2023 also prompted the Authority do decide
- 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
on re-evaluating the answer keys is also an argument
which will have to be rejected in its entirety.
25. W.P. No.100378 of 2023 was filed by one
Sri.Siddappa K.Yandigeri, for issuance of a direction to the
respondents to issue a reply to his letters dated
06.01.2023 and 03.01.2023, and also for quashing
question nos.26, 94 and 96 of "B1" version of the question
paper and as a consequence, grant him grace marks.
26. The Authority did not choose to bring it to the notice
of this Court that the time fixed for filing objections to the
provisional list of answer keys had already expired and the
final answer keys were also published after consideration
of the objections that they have received. This Court
merely directed the Authority to consider the
representation made by the petitioner and this Court also
made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
- 30 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
27. The Authority, in light of the fact that it had already
published the final answer keys, ought to have rejected
the representations of Siddappa K.Yandigeri by stating
that he had chosen to raise objections to the provisional
answer keys only on 03.01.2023 and 06.01.2023 i.e.,
beyond the prescribed date of 02.01.2022.
28. Instead of adopting this procedure, the Authority has
essentially used the order passed by this court as a ruse to
embark upon the adventure of re-evaluating the finalised
answer keys. This conduct of the Authority cannot really
be appreciated as fair and proper.
29. The other argument that as a result of re-evaluation,
136 candidates had become eligible, by itself, proves that
injustice caused to 136 candidates were remedied, cannot
also be accepted.
30. It has to be stated here that these 136 candidates,
no doubt, became eligible pursuant to the reevaluation of
the already finalised answer keys, however, at the same
- 31 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
time it is to be borne in mind that the persons who were
ineligible, were made eligible by virtue of this improper
procedure adopted by the KEA and in a process which
requires fairness to all concerned, such procedure, which
would aid one section and deprive the right of another,
cannot be countenanced.
31. The learned counsel sought to place reliance on the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal Nos.5316-5319 of 2013 to contend that it is
impermissible for the Authority to re-evaluate the finalized
answer keys when it discovered that there have been
serious objections raised to the answer keys. It has to be
stated here that in the case relied upon, the Apex Court
was not dealing with a case where a procedure had been
prescribed for consideration of the objections to a
provisional set of answer keys by an Expert Committee
and the publication of the final set of answer keys
thereafter.
- 32 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the
case in which, after the appointments were made,
objections had been raised regarding the defects/
mistakes in a set of questions and in that regard, a
decision has been taken to constitute an Expert Committee
to look into the case and the said Committee found several
errors.
33. As noticed above, in the present case, a process was
clearly prescribed for publication of a provisional set of
answer keys, invitation of objections and thereafter,
reference of the objections to the Subject Expert
Committee for finalization of the answer keys and the
answer keys so finalized by the Expert Committee after
considering the objections were, to be published and which
was, in fact, declared to be final.
34. In light of this factual aspect, the reliance placed on
the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
would be of no avail.
- 33 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
35. The reliance placed on the judgment of a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.11216 of 2017
(Harish B. v. State of Karnataka, disposed of on
29.06.2021) to contend that the Court should not re-
evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets and that the
Court should presume the correctness of the key answers
and proceed under that presumption, cannot be a
proposition on which one can have a different opinion.
36. As stated above, in this case, a Subject Expert
Committee considered the objections that had been raised
pursuant to the publication of the provisional answer keys
published and only thereafter, the answer keys were
published.
37. It has to be stated here that this Court is merely
affirming the correctness of the finalised answer keys
which, even according to the Press Note of the Authority,
had been declared to be final and binding. This Court, on
the basis of the said decision, cannot come to the
- 34 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
conclusion that the decision relied upon entitles the
Authority to have a second look on the answer keys which
had already been finalized.
38. It is also to be borne in mind that if the argument of
the KEA is accepted, there would be no finality in the
matter of finalization of the answer keys. Once the
objections were called for and the same were considered
by the Subject Expert Committee, following which a final
set of answer keys were published, it was simply
impermissible for the Authority to have a second look.
39. In fact, if this argument is to be extended further, if
the KEA were to receive a further set of objections, it
would basically entitle the Authority to embark upon
another exercise of finalizing "the revised finalised answer
keys" and this would, essentially, be a never ending
process.
40. In fact, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Dr.Praveen Kumar I Kusubi vs. Rajiv Gandhi
- 35 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
University of Health Science, Bangalore and others -
ILR 2O03 KAR 805 has stated that when a Committee of
Experts has been constituted and after considering a
challenge to the answer keys, the Committee of Experts
had determined as to what the correct answer was, it was
not open for entertaining a contention that the answers
given by the Subject Experts should not be accepted. This
Court, in fact, stated that in all such matters, at some
stage, there should be a finality.
41. In the result, the answer keys published on
04.02.2023 and the provisional merit list dated
04.02.2023, which have been produced as Annexures 'A'
and 'B' in Writ Petition No.4572 of 2023 are quashed and
the KPTCL is directed to proceed to act only on the basis of
the provisional score list of eligible candidates dated
03.01.2023, and conclude the process of selection within a
period of 4 months.
- 36 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023
42. Post these matters for reporting compliance of these
directions on 18.12.2023.
The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK
CT:SN
