Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahesh vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 5 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1155 OF 2023 (S-RES)
C/W.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1204 OF 2023 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1220 OF 2023 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1403 OF 2023 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1607 OF 2023 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2024 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2024 (S-RES)
IN WA NO.1155 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . SHRUTHI G.,
W/O SATHEESHA G A,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O GUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBALI,
VALAGEREMENASA POST
KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK,
MANDYA-571 426.
2 . DEEPIKA M.,
D/O MURTHY L N.,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
NO 144/25/1,
5TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS,
GANESH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE NORTH-560 096.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SR. COUNSEL
A/W SRI. SUHAS G., ADVOCATE FOR
-
2
SRI. SRINIVASAN RAO C.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHETHAN K.,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/o BHAGAWATHI,
BEHIND MIRJI PETROL BUNK,
BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572 103.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560 012.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1,
SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD., ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.4572/2023 DATED 22.08.2023
AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL.
IN WA NO.1204 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR .M,
S/O MANI SHANAKR .A,
-
3
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 188,
3RD CROSS, E BLOCK BDA LAYOUT,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU-560 084.
2. SRI. MUSTAFA,
S/O MOINODDIN,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BICHKATTI,
NEAR POCHAMMA TEMPLE,
GARAGAPALLI, CHINCHOLI,
KALABURGI-585 305.
3. MRS. SUPRIYA SAJJAN,
W/O HARISH K N,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1134,
VISVESHVARAYA LAYOUT, 8TH BLOCK,
GIDADA KONENAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 091.
4. SRI. PRADEEP,
S/O VAIJANATH ALLURE,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 1 891 4 AND 5,
SUKHA DHAAMA,
1ST CROSS, GANESH NAGAR,
JEWARGI ROAD,
KALABURGI-585 102.
5. SRI. CHENNAPPA,
S/O HANAMANTRAY JALIBENCHI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 2/119,
NEAR BASAVESHWAR TEMPLE,
DYAMANAL POST, KAMANATAGI
HUNASAGI,
YADGIR-585 291.
6. MS. DEEPANJALI,
D/O VITHAL,
-
4
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 2 911/4/8,
SARVODAYA NAGAR,
BEHIND AMBEDKAR HOSTEL,
RAJAPUR ROAD,
KALABURGI-585105.
7. SRI. BHEEMANNA,
S/O MANAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT H NO E/2,
NEAR GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL,
SHANTAPUR,
POST TINTINI, SHORAPUR,
YADGIR- 585 290.
8. MS. SHRADDHA,
D/O CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT EWS 102, 2ND PHASE,
NEAR BRAHMAKUMARI ASHRAM,
ADARSH NAGAR,
KALABURGI-585 105.
9. SRI. DURGADAS R KAMBOJI,
S/O RAJENDRA KAMBOJI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 589/B/1,
AT POST DESHANUR,
NEAR CANARA BANK
BAILHONGAL, BELAGAVI-591 147.
10 . MS. SUMA ANGADI,
D/O SANGAPPA ANGADI,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT WARD NO 25,
KALAKALESHWARA KRUPA,
THALEDA LAYOUT,
KUSTAGI ROAD,
KOPPAL-583 231.
11 . MS. ROOPA N R,
D/O RAVINDRANATHA N B,
-
5
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MYLARA SADHANA,
NEAR JGNAJYOTHI SCHOOL,
VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION,
HULIYARU, C N HALLI TALUK,
TUMUKURU-572 218.
12 . SRI. MALLIKARJUN,
S/O DHULAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT E/24, SANABO AT,
POST SARADGI B,
KALABURGI-585 308.
13 . MS. REKHA G D,
D/O DODDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 28,
BEERESHWARA NILAYA,
2ND CROSS, NEAR INDIAN OIL
PETROL BUNK, GORUR ROAD,
BANASHANKARI LAYOUT,
HASSAN-573 201.
14 . MRS. SHRUTHI B T,
W/O MANJUNATH K,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
KEMPANA DODDERI,
TUMKURU TALUK,
KARNATAKA-572 138.
15 . SRI SIDDAPPA K YENDIGERI,
S/O KALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TALAGIHAL,
POST. ILAL,
BAGALKOT TALUK,
BAGALKOT-587 111.
16 . SRI PATELNAIK L,
S/O LAKSHMIPATHINAIK,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RA/T NO. 50/4, NEAR SEVALAL TEMPLE,
-
6
DOOPADAHALLI THANDA,
DOOPADAHALLI POST, KOTTUR,
VIJAYANAGAR-583 134.
17 . MS. KAVITA SUDDI,
D/O AMBANNA SUDDI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 9TH WARD,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
NEAR SHARANABASAVESHWARA SCHOOL,
KARATAGI,
KOPPAL-583 229.
18 . MS. ARUNA
D/O NAGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 31/D,
AT/ POST NANDEPALLI,
TQ/ GURUMITKAL,
YADGIR-585 315.
19 . MS. ROHINI TALLUR,
D/O BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 16,
PRABHU NAGAR,
2ND CROSS, MURAGOD ROAD,
BAILHONGAL,
BELAGAVI-591 102.
20 . MS. VARSHITHA Y,
D/O YALLAPPA G,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 7,
SUNANDHA NILAYA,
HANUMANTHA NAGAR, KEBEHALLA,
OPPOSITE MUNESHWARA TEMPLE,
SUNKADAKATTE,
BENGALURU NORTH-560 091.
21 . SRI. SHASHIKUMAR,
S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
-
7
RESIDING AT 6/12, GOKULA NAGAR,
RAWOOR POST, CHITTAPUR TQ,
KALABURGI-585 225.
22 . MS. NAGARATNA SHETTY,
D/O MALLIKARJUN,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 6/100, AMBEKAR NAGAR,
SHASTRI CHOWK, SHAHABAD,
CHITTAPUR TQ, KALABURGI-585 228.
23 . SRI. SHASHI KUMAR NAIK A,
S/O MAHADEVANAIK A,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.72,
MACHIHALLI THANDA,
MACHIHALLI POST,
HARAPANAHALLI,
VIJAYANAGARA-583 131.
24 . MS. MANJULA DEVI S,
D/O SRIRANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 33A JAGADAMBA NILAYA,
KUVEMPUNAGAR NEAR,
WIDIA SCHOOL,
VIDYANAGAR BAGALAGUNTE,
BANGALORE URBAN-560 073.
25 . MS. KANCHANA KESHAV PATGAR,
D/O KESHAV H PATGAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PADUVANI POST
PADUVANI KUMTA,
UTTARA KANNADA-581 333.
26 . SRI. LAXMAN PAWAR,
S/O RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GANJIPETH
CHANNAPETH ROAD,
OLD HUBLI, DHARWAD- 580 024.
-
8
27 . MRS. KAVYA R,
W/O PRAVEEN KUMAR M,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.254/B,
4TH CROSS, NAZARBAD,
ITTIGEGUD, MYSURU -570 010.
28 . SRI. MANIKANTH S SOTTAPPANAVAR,
S/O SHIVAPPA SOTTAPPANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHIVAJAYA NILAYA,
AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
HAVANUR ROAD,
HAVERI-581 108.
29 . MS MADIHA ANJUM,
D/O MOHAMMED KHALID N,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT NO 297/1, H P GALLI,
BEHIND MAKAN, CHOWKIPETE,
DAVANAGERE-577 001.
30 . MRS. AMBIKA,
W/O SIDDARAJ SAJJAN SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT H NO.16, MURKI AT,
POST MURKI, TQ KAMALNAGAR,
DIST. BIDAR -588 417.
31 . SRI. SHRIKANT CHAVAN,
S/O SHIVALAL CHAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.113,
AT ANKALAGI POST, ANKALAGI,
VIJAYAPURA-586 127.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND
SMT. ASHWINI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE,
SMT. D.V. NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE FOR A-15)
-
9
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560 012,
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
3. CHETHAN K.,
R/O BHAGAWATI,
BEHIND MIRJI PETROL BUNK,
BATAWADI,
TUMKUR-572 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD., ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3,
SRI. MUHAMMED SHAMIL, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
AS PROPOSED RESPONDENTS ON IA. 3/2024)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, R/W RULE 26 OF THE WRIT
PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1977, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 22.08.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4572 OF 2023 AND DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS AND
ETC.
-
10
IN WA NO.1220 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI SRINIVAS MURTHY V,
S/O VENKATARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.185,
HONNASHETTARAHUNDI VILLAGE,
HONGALLI POST, GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-571 111.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KESHAV .M DATAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
DIRECTOR ADMIN AND HR,
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012.
3. CHETHAN K.,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O BHAGAWATHI,
BEHIND MIRJI PETROL BUNK,
BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572 103.
4. SRI. GIREESH PAVADASHETTY,
S/O VISHWANATH PAVADASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT HOYSALA HABITAT,
D-201, NAGENAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
-
11
(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD., ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3,
SRI. J. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 22.08.2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.4572/2023 C/W
W.P.NO.17481/2023 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC.
IN WA NO.1403 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MAHESH,
S/O SRI VIJAYKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT 4/170, JAWAHAR ROAD,
HUMNABAD,
BIDAR-585 330.
2. SRI HANAMANT,
S/O SRI RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.103,
NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
AT BAGDURI, POST MUDBI,
BASAVAKALYAN,
BIDAR-585 437.
3. SRI SIDDAPPA,
S/O SRI NAGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1 360/A, AT BELOOR K,
NEAR LAKSHMI TEMPLE,
POST JEEVANAGI, KAMALAPURA,
KALABURGI-585 313.
4. SRI KADLIBALA GURUNATHA,
S/O SRI BASAVARAJA K,
-
12
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/A NO.75, 1ST WARD,
NEAR NAGAPPANA KATTE,
UPPAR STREET AGASI,
PAPINAYAKANAHALLI, HOSPET,
VIJAYANAGARA-583 223.
5. SRI SACHIN,
S/O SRI BABURAO,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/A HOUSE NO.70,
BHAVANI MANDIR ROAD,
KAMTHANA,
BIDAR-585 226.
6. SRI GANESH BABU K,
S/O SRI RAMANJENEYULU,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/A INDIRA NAGAR, 2ND CROSS,
16TH WARD, NEAR GOVT. GUEST HOUSE,
NEAR VISHAL NAGAR,
4TH CROSS, BELLARI-583 101.
7. SRI PRAVEENA KONGI,
S/O SRI CHANDRASHEKHARA KONGI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/A 5 1 88 25, BAPUJI ONI,
NAAR GUNDA KRASS,
DEVADURGA,
RAICHUR-584 111.
8. SRI PRASHANTH J,
S/O SRI NAGARAJ J,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/A DOOR NO.95, WARD NO.17,
JANTHA COLONY, RICE MILL,
ANANTHAPUR ROAD,
BISANAHALLI,
BELLARI-583 103.
9. SRI AKSHAYKUMAR M,
S/O SRI KUMARASWAMY MATHAD,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
-
13
R/A 204/7, SIDDESHWARA KURPA,
SOMESHWARA NAGARA,
KVOR COLONY,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
VIJAYANAGARA-583 212.
10 . SRI SHIVASHANKARA KARIAPPA PATIL,
S/O SRI KARIAPPA AMBRAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/A HOUSE NO.50,
NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
DONAMARADI POST,
MALLADAGUDDA MASKI TALUK,
RAICHUR-584 123.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ADITHYA SONDHI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PARASHURAM A.L., ADVOCATE(VC))
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560 012,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
3. SRI. CHETHAN K.,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O BHAGAWATI,
BEHIND MIRJI PETROL BUNK,
BATAWADI
-
14
TUMKUR-572 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD., ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 22.08.2023 IN WRIT PETITION
NO.4572/2023 (CONNECTED ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION
No.2185/2023, WRIT PETITION No.2257/2023 AND WRIT
PETITION No.17481/2023) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS WRIT
PETITION No.4572/2023 FILED BY RESPONDENT
NO.3/PETITIONER.
IN WA NO.1607 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1. MANOJ BABU SUNAGAR,
S/O. BABU SUNAGAR,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O. NO.43, SAVANT ONI,
NEAR CHURCH BIDI,
KHANAPUR TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-591 106.
2. SHAMEED SABA,
S/O. MURTHUJA SABA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O. WARD NO. 3,
SANGAMESHWARA CAMP,
VADDARAHATTI,
GANGAVATHI TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-583 235.
...APPELLANTS
-
15
(BY SRI. KIRAN .S. JAVALI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SRINIVASAN RAO C.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
REP. BY ITS
MANAGIND DIRECTOR AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560 012.
3. CHETHAN K.,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O BHAGAWATHI,
BEHIND MIRJI PETROL BUNK,
BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD., ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP NO.4572/2023 DATED 22.08.2023 AND ALLOW
THIS APPEAL.
-
16
IN WA NO.80 OF 2024:
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 DISTRICT - 571 423.
2. SRI SHIVANAGOUDA S. BIRADAR,
S/O SIDDANAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT KUNTOJI - 586 245,
DISTRICT-VIJAYAPUR (BIJAPUR).
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HALASHETTI JAGADISH SIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
REP. BY ITS
MANAGIND DIRECTOR AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560 012.
3. CHETHAN K.,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
-
17
R/O BHAGAWATHI,
BEHIND MIRJI PETROL BUNK,
BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD., ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2023 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.4572/2023.
IN WA NO.516 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VEERABHADRAPPA DUNDAPPA
KOKATANUR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 136,
JAMAKHANDI, ASANGI,
BADAMI, BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-587 311.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KESHAV M. DATAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
DIRECTOR ADMIN & HR
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
-
18
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560 012.
3. CHETHAN K.,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O BHAGAWATHI,
BEHIND MIRJI PETROL BUNK,
BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572 103.
4. SRI. GIREESH PAVADASHETTY,
S/O VISHWANATH PAVADASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT HOYSALA HABITAT,
D-201, NAGENAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD., ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3,
SRI. J. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP NO.4572/2023 C/W WP NO.17481/2023 DATED
22.08.2023.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-
19
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
These appeals are preferred against the common
judgment dated 22.08.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.2185/2023 c/w. Writ Petitions
No.2257/2023, 4572/2023 and 17481/2023 (S-RES). The
Writ Petitions were filed by the candidates, who had
appeared in the selection conducted for appointment of
Junior Assistant Electrical in the Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Limited ('KPTCL' for short).
2. We have heard Shri. P.S. Rajagopal, learned
senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Jayanth Dev Kumar
and Smt. Ashwini Rajagopal, learned Advocates, Smt. S.
Susheela, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri.
Suhas. G, learned Advocate, Shri. Adithya Sondhi, learned
senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Parashuram. A.L,
learned Advocate, Shri. Kiran S. Javali, learned senior
counsel as instructed by Shri. Srinivasan Rao C.N, learned
Advocate, Smt. D.V. Nidhishree, learned counsel, Shri.
Keshav. M. Datar, learned counsel, Shri. Halashetti Jagadish
-
Sidramappa, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
Shri. S.S. Naganand, learned senior counsel as instructed by
Smt. Sumana Naganand, learned Advocate and Shri. A.
Chandrachud, learned counsel appearing for KPTCL, Shri.
N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for Karnataka
Examination Authority. Shri. Prithveesh M.K., learned
counsel and Shri. J. Prashanth, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents. Shri. Muhammed Shamil, learned
counsel appearing for impleading as proposed respondents
in I.A.No.3/2024 in W.A.No.1204/2023.
3. The questions which arise for consideration in
these appeals are:-
(i) Whether the KEA, which was entrusted with
the work of conducting the selection had
the power to conduct a revision of an
answer key duly finalized in accordance
with the notification?
(ii) Whether the select list prepared on the
basis of the revised answer key is to be
acted upon?
-
(iii) Whether the persons already appointed on
the basis of the revised select list are to be
sent out of service?
4. The short facts require for a consideration are as
follows:-
The KPTCL issued a notification dated 01.02.2022
calling for applications to various posts. The qualifications
for the posts and the conditions for recruitment were
detailed in the Notification. The appellant as well as the
private respondents were applicants to the post of Assistant
Engineer (Electrical). It is submitted that an examination
had conducted on 24.07.2022. The test was an Optical Mark
Recognition (OMR) based aptitude test. The provisional
answer key was published on 25.08.2022. Objections to the
provisional answer key were to be submitted on or before
5:30 p.m. on 02.09.2022. Thereafter, final answer key was
also published on 27.12.2022. The provisional score list of
eligible candidates was published on 03.01.2023 on the
basis of the finalized answer key. Objections were invited to
the said list as well. On the basis of objections preferred by
-
large number of candidates to the provisional select list
raising specific objections to the finalized answer key.
5. It is submitted that on the basis of complaints
received as against the finalized answer key, the KEA
decided to reassess the entire evaluation process and
referred the entire papers 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 the opinion of the subject experts, a
revised provisional merit list was published and submitted
by the KEA to the KPTCL. The said provisional merit list
contained the names of 636 candidates. The said revision of
the final answer key and the provisional merit list prepared
pursuant thereto were challenged by persons who were
included in the provisional score list dated 03.01.2023, but
who did not obtain employment because of the revision of
the finalized answer key. They contended that the KEA had
no jurisdiction to review the finalized answer key on the
basis of objections received to the provisional score list. It
-
was contended that since a provisional answer key had been
issued and objections were called for which had to be filed
before 02.09.2022 and since the final key answer had been
published on 27.12.2022, there was no power in the KEA to
refer the matter to an Expert Committee or to issue a
revised provisional merit list on the basis of the corrected
marks.
6. The KEA defended their action stating that after
the answer key was finalized and a provisional score list was
prepared; more than 900 objections had been received to
the finalized answer key. It was further stated that one
Siddappa K. Yandigeri had filed W.P.No.100378/2023 before
the High Court of Dharwad seeking awarding of grace marks
to Question No. 26, 94 and 96 of version 'B1' and the High
Court had disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated
23.01.2023 directing the KEA to consider the representation
filed by the petitioner within four weeks.
7. Further, it is submitted that the KEA had found
that in the light of the vast number of representations
-
received, the matter requires a re-consideration. It is
therefore contended that the constitution of a Committee of
Subject Experts for consideration of the objections raised
was incidental and well within the powers of the KEA and
was intended only to see that the most meritorious
candidates were selected. The learned Single Judge
considered the contentions advanced and found that the
only question to be decided is whether the KEA possessed
the power to refer the objections raised by the candidates to
a Committee of Subject Experts after the finalized key
answers were published.
8. The learned Single Judge found that the Subject
Expert Committee had considered the objections raised
pursuant to the publication of finalized answer keys. The
authority had issued a press note specifically stating that
objections would be received to the provisional answer key
only till 05:30 p.m. on 02.09.2022 and that the finalized
answer key published after considering the objections to the
provisional answer key would be final. The learned Single
Judge therefore found that once the finalized answer key
-
had been published there was no power in the KEA to
consider any objections to the said finalized answer key or
direct to accept the recommendation of the Subject Expert
Committee for awarding of grace marks. The answer keys
published on 04.02.2023 and the provisional merit list
published on the basis of the same on 04.02.2023 were
therefore quashed. The KPTCL was directed to proceed on
the basis of the provisional score list of eligible candidates
dated 03.01.2023 and to conclude the process of selection
within a period of four months.
9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants would contend that the persons whose names
were included in the second provisional merit list dated
04.02.2023 were not made parties to the writ petition at all.
It is contended that the KEA had admittedly received more
than 900 objections to the finalized answer key published on
27.12.2022. The Dharwad Bench of this Court had also
directed the consideration of the representation preferred by
one candidate alleging that the finalized answer key
contained errors. Further, it is contended that there is no
-
contention that any of the revised key answers were wrong
and the KEA had not acted on its own accord and had
referred the matter to the Special Committee of Subject
Experts whose recommendations were accepted by the KEA.
10. It is submitted that the Second Expert Committee
Report has not been challenged and there is no error
attributed to the same. It is submitted that the exercise
undertaken by the KEA was therefore bonafide and that
there is no express bar provided in the notification or
elsewhere on the powers of the KEA to take necessary steps
to see that errors are corrected and fairness is ascertained
in the selection process. It is contended that where there is
admittedly an error in the evaluation, a re-evaluation is
perfectly valid and can be conducted by the Examination
Authority. It is contended that such re-evaluation conducted
even after appointments were made have been upheld by
the Apex Court. It is further contended that since the key
answers were palpably incorrect, there is no exclusion to the
power of the examining authority in correcting the said
wrong answers and awarding grace marks as has been done
-
in the instant case. It is further contended that mere
assertions of malafide are totally insufficient and no valid
allegations have been made as against any ascertainable
persons in the instant case. The learned senior counsel
would also submit that where objections have been filed as
against the finalized answer key, there was no bar to the
KEA entrusting considerations to such objections to an
Expert Committee.
11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants have placed reliance on the following judgments:-
• Manish Ujwal and Others v. Maharishi
Dayanand Saraswati University and Others,
reported in (2005) 13 SCC 744;
• Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission,
Through its Chairman and Another v. Rahul
Singh and Another, reported in (2018) 7 SCC
254;
• Kanpur University, Through Vice-Chancellor
and Others v. Samir Gupta and Others,
reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309;
• Rajesh Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar and
Others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 690;
-
• Vikas Pratap Singh and Others v. State of
Chhattisgarh and Others, reported in (2013) 14
SCC 494;
• Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others, reported in (2018) 2 SCC
357;
• The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission and Another v. Miss Hage
Mamung and Others, by Order dated
20.01.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No.350 of
2023;
• H. Anjanappa and Others v. A. Prabhakar and
Others, reported in AIR 2025 SC 924;
• S. Ramachandra Rao v. S. Nagabhushana Rao
and Others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1460;
• Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak
Sharma and Others, reported in (1979) 4 SCC
389;
• Girias Investment Private Limited and Another
v. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in
(2008) 7 SCC 53;
• Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v.
L.K. Ratna and Others, reported in (1986) 4
SCC 537;
• Prabodh Verma and Others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others, reported in (1984) 4 SCC
251;
-
• K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others,
reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395;
• Union of India and Another v. Narendra Singh,
reported in (2008) 2 SCC 750;
• Sahiti and Others v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R.
University of Health Sciences and Others,
reported in (2009) 1 SCC 599;
• Khargram Panchayat Samiti and Another v.
State of West Bengal and Others, reported in
(1987) 3 SCC 82;
• Dr. M.C. Bindal v. R.C. Singh and Others,
reported in (1989) 1 SCC 136;
• T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu and Another, reported
in (2008) 9 SCC 403;
• A.A. Calton v. Director of Education and
Another, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 33;
• N. Sriraman v. Union of India and Others,
reported in 2004 (7) Kar. L.J. 152 (DB);
• Shrutikatiyar v. Registrar General, Delhi High
Court, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1258;
• Registrar General, Delhi High Court v. Shruti
Katiyar, by order dated 07.03.2024 passed in
SLA (C) No(s).5366/2024;
• Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of
National Law Universities and Another, by
Order dated 07.05.2025 passed in SLP (C)
No.12786 of 2025;
-
• Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v.
Gulbarga University, Rep. by its Registrar and
Others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 767;
• Rishal and Others v. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission and Others, reported in (2018) 8
SCC 81;and
• Dr. Praveen Kumar I Kusubi v. Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences, Bangalore and
Others, reported in ILR 2003 KAR 805.
12. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
KPTCL would contend that the KPTCL had only made
appointments from the merit list provided by the KEA and
that it has no vested interest in the matter. The learned
senior counsel would place reliance on the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Sreeshyal Industries
Employees Union v. State Bank of India and Another,
reported in 1983 SCC OnLine Kar 117 and submits that
the non impleadment of persons included in the provisional
merit list would not invalidate the judgment of the learned
Single Judge.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents on the other hand contended that there was no
select list as on the date of filing of the writ petitions and
-
the challenge was raised only against the action of the KEA.
It is submitted that it is a trite law that even persons
included in the select list have no vested right to be
appointed and that a person included in a provisional merit
list can have no right to contend that he should have been
put on notice and heard before an error committed by the
KEA was corrected by this Court. It is further contended
that the learned Single Judge had considered the provisions
of the Notification as well as the Press Note issued by the
KEA and had found that the final answer key was intended
to be just that, final. It is therefore contended that there is
no power in the KEA to review a finalized answer key,
especially in the light of its own precedent.
14. The learned counsel for the private respondents
would place reliance in the following judgments:-
• Dr. Praveen Kumar I Kusubi v. Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences, Bangalore,
reported in ILR 2003 KAR 805;
• Shivdev Singh and Others v. State of Punjab
and Others, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909;
-
• Pohla Singh alias Pohla Ram (D) by LRs v.
State of Punjab and Others, reported in (2004)
6 SCC 126;
• Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India and
others, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47;
• Punjab State Electricity Board and Others v.
Malkiat Singh, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 22;
• Employees State Insurance Corporation and
Another v. Dr. Vinay Kumar and Others,
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 699;
• Dr. Vinay Rampal v. State of Jammu and
Kashmir and Others, reported in (1984) 1 SCC
160;
• Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and
Others, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85;
• Sanjay K. Dixit and Others v. Sate of Uttar
Pradesh and Others, reported in (2019) 17 SCC
373;
• Kum. Sahana S. v. Karnataka Examinations
Authority and Another, by order dated
27.06.2013 passed in W.P.No.23514 of 2013
(EDN-RES) a/w. Connected Matter;
• Union of India and Others v. Sri. Vijayakumar
S. Emmegol, by order dated 12.10.2023 passed
in W.P.No.106050 of 2023 (S-CAR), and
-
• Gajendrapal v. Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission and others, by order dated
17.06.2021 passed in W.P.No.2503 of 2021.
15. The learned counsel for the KEA submits that
there is no contention raised by the writ petitioners/private
respondents herein with regard to the correctness of the
conclusion reached by the Expert Committee. It is submitted
that it was only on account of the large number of
complaints received that the finalized key answers were
subjected to a further review. It is submitted that there is
absolutely no bar to such an action where error is suspected
by the KEA.
16. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on
all sides and have considered the contentions advanced. As
held by the learned Single Judge, the short question that
requires consideration is whether the KEA was justified in
having made an attempt to correct the mistakes in a
finalized answer key. The Notification issued by the KEA
specifically stated that the answer key published on
27.12.2022 would be final. However, it is the case of the
KEA that in the light of the several complaints received with
-
regard to the incorrectness of the answer key, they thought
it fit to entrust the verification of the answer key to a
committee of subject experts. We notice that no serious
sustainable allegations of malafides have been raised as
against the KEA. We also notice that no persons have been
impleaded as parties to the writ petition to sustain the
allegation of malafides.
17. Therefore, the question is whether in the facts
and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the
pleadings on record, the learned Single Judge was justified
in holding that the finalized answer key could not have been
corrected at the instance of the KEA?
We notice that the Apex Court in Vikas Pratap
Singh's case (supra), has specifically considered the
question of an error in the answer key and a resultant re-
evaluation of the answer scripts on the basis of the opinion
of an Expert Committee. It was found that once the Expert
Committee had considered the key answers and had given
its opinion, it would not be open to the Court to reconsider
the said aspect. In the said case, the appointments had
-
already been made on the basis of the erroneous answer
keys and the lists published relying thereon. However, the
Apex Court found, after considering the body of precedent
law that the decision of the Board to conduct the re-
evaluation was a valid decision and could not be said to have
caused any prejudice whatsoever either to the appellants or
to the candidates selected in the revised merit list.
However, considering the fact that in view of the interim
orders passed by the learned Single Judge at the writ
petition stage, the appellants had been appointed and had
completed their training and since there were no allegations
of fraud or misrepresentation on their part, the said
candidates were directed to be retained in appointment
placing them at the bottom of the revised merit list.
18. In Manish Ujwal's case (supra), the Apex Court,
considering an error in the key answer in a common
entrance test for admission to medical courses found that
the question of correctness of the key answers was not the
matter for the High Court to examine in judicial review.
Further, in Shrutikatiyar's case (supra), the Delhi High
-
Court has held that the benefit of objections filed by certain
of the candidates are to be given to all candidates in the
selection. The said judgment has also been upheld by the
Apex Court in SLA (C) No(s).5366/2024.
In Ran Vijay Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court
held at paragraphs No.30 and 31 as under:-
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear
and we only propose to highlight a few significant
conclusions. They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet
or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the
authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an
answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court
may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is
demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process
of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in
rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been
committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or
scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has no
expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left
to academics;
-
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the
key answers and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to
the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or
compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing
or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an
error is committed by the examination authority, the
complete body of candidates suffers. The entire
examination process does not deserve to be derailed only
because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or
perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an
erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates
suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that
cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not
always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an
impasse -- exclude the suspect or offending question."
19. We notice that in the instant case there is a
factual error, which has occurred in the finalized answer key.
Though detailed arguments were advanced as to the nature
and scope of the error and whether the appellants herein
had raised specific objections pointing out the said error in
the respective answer keys or not, we are of the opinion
that those details do not have to be considered by this Court
in these proceedings. This is on account of the fact that the
-
committee of experts, which was appointed by the KEA to
examine the key answers, found that there were errors in
the finalized answer key. There is no allegation raised
against the report of the Expert Committee or the conclusion
reached by it. In the light of the judgment of the Apex
Court, we are of the opinion that the said question is not the
one which is liable to be examined in these proceedings as
well.
20. It is also not in dispute that several objections
have been received to the finalized answer key. We also
notice that there was no statutory embargo as against the
KEA conducting a re-evaluation on finding that there were
errors in the answer key. Since the re-evaluation or the re-
checking of the finalized answer key was not conducted by
the KEA in house but was on the reports submitted by an
Expert Committee which is not under challenge, we are of
the opinion that the said exercise cannot be held to be
completely without power. Though it is true that the Press
Note clearly stated that the objections to the key answers
had to be filed before 5 p.m, on 02.09.2022 and that the
-
finalized key answer would not be subject to any further
objections, since the writ petitioners were not able to
establish any malafides in the action of the KEA, we are of
the opinion that the exercise of re-evaluation carried out by
the KEA cannot be said to be so erroneous as to warrant the
interference as has been done by the learned Single Judge.
21. We notice from the judgments which are relied on
by the learned counsel appearing on all sides that there
would normally be no occasion for the examining authority
to attempt a re-verification of the finalized answer key.
However, we also notice that in a case where several
complaints are raised against the finalized answer key, there
also does not appear to be any bar as against the examining
authority seeking a re-verification of such answer key.
22. Having considered the contentions advanced on
either side and in the light of the factual circumstances
available in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the
KEA cannot be said to be powerless where an error is
pointed out in the finalized answer key to make a
verification whether correction is warranted or not. In the
-
instant case, the KEA submits that about 900 complaints
had been received as against the finalized answer key and
this Court had also directed the consideration of one of such
complaints.
23. It is in the above circumstances that the KEA had
formed a Committee of Experts to re-verify the finalized
answer key. In the absence of any statutory provision
prohibiting such an action, we are of the opinion that it was
well within the power of the KEA to have carried out the
exercise. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the writ appeals are liable to succeed.
24. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was
dated 22.08.2023. The appeals were filed on 13.09.2023
and the notice was ordered on 27.06.2024 returnable on
18.07.2024. On that day, the Division Bench ordered that
the copy of the Expert Committee Meeting shall be made
available to all parties. Thereafter, the writ appeals were
listed on several dates. On 07.02.2024, the following order
was passed by the Division Bench:-
"x x x x x
-
Learned Advocate General and Shri Naganand
submitted that competitive examinations were
conducted by the KEA and a list dated 03.01.2023 was
prepared. Subsequently, it was found that few key
answers were not correct and thereafter, a revised list
was prepared on 04.02.2023. As per the list dated
03.01.2023, there are 501 eligible candidates. As per
the list dated 04.02.2023, there are 636 eligible
candidates. They pray that the KPTCL which falls under
the 'essential services category' may be permitted to
appoint 404 candidates. Though there are 501
candidates found eligible, after selection and applying
roster, 313 candidates under non-Kalyana Karnataka
quota and 91 candidates under Kalyana Karnataka
quota and in all, 404 candidates are found eligible for
appointment. They pray that KPTCL be permitted to
make appointments making it clear that the
appointments shall be subject to outcome of these writ
appeals and parties shall not claim equities.
x x x x x"
Thereafter, on 08.02.2024, an appointment order was
issued making appointments of 404 candidates including the
writ petitioners who are the private respondents herein. It
is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners that they have been working for the past one
year and eight months. In the said circumstances and taking
note of the judgments of the Apex Court, we are of the
-
opinion that this is a fit case where the KPTCL should be
directed to continue their services as against available posts.
An appropriate decision in this regard as to how the services
of the private respondents can be regulated shall be taken
by the KPTCL after hearing them as well within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of copy of this
Judgment.
25. Accordingly:-
(i) The Writ Appeals are allowed.
(ii) The judgment dated 22.08.2023 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.2185/2023 c/w. Writ Petitions
No.2257/2023, 4572/2023 and
17481/2023, is hereby set aside.
(iii) The Writ Petition No.2185/2023 c/w. Writ
Petitions No.2257/2023, 4572/2023 and
17481/2023, shall stand dismissed.
(iv) However, the KPTCL is directed to continue
the services of the writ petitioners, who
were appointed pursuant to the orders of
the learned Single Judge and shall pass
appropriate orders after hearing them as
-
well with regard to how their appointments
are to be regulated.
(v) The needful shall be done within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
All interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed in
all the appeals.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
cp*
