Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 12 September, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
WA No. 200138 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, ®
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO.200138 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. VENKATESH S/O SUGAPPA
AGE: 39 YEARS,
2. RAMESH S/O ESHWARAPPA
AGE: 36 YEARS,
3. GIRIMALLIKARJUN S/O SAVARAPPA
AGE: 38 YEARS,
Digitally signed 4. SHIVAPPA S/O KAREPPA
by
NIJAMUDDIN AGE: 32 YEARS,
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 5. MOHAMMED ALI S/O GULAM RASOOL,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 46 YEARS,
ALL ARE WORKING ON TEMPORARY BASIS
IN THE OFFICE OF RESPONDENT NO.3
UNIVERSITY IN THE WORK OF ASSISTANT/
TYPIST AND R/O RAICHUR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
WA No. 200138 of 2022
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES, RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES, RAICHUR - 584 101.
4. SRI. NAGINDRA BADADALLI
S/O RACHANNA, AGE: MAJOR,
5. SRI. PRABHU OMKARI S/O BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
6. SMT. ANJALADEVI W/O M. VENUGOPAL
AGE: MAJOR,
7. SRI D. ANAND S/O D. DEVAPPA
AGE: MAJOR,
8. SRI. SHANKARNAG S/O THIMMAPPA.K,
AGE: MAJOR,
9. SRI ABHIJIT S/O LINGAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
10. SRI SHARANAPPA S/O MARIYAPPA
AGE: MAJOR,
11. MS. LAXMI SEELIN D/O SHAMRAO SEELIN,
AGE: MAJOR,
12. MS. RAJESHWARI K. D/O AMBANNA,
AGE: MAJOR,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
WA No. 200138 of 2022
HC-KAR
13. MS. SUMANGALAMMA
MUKKADDAYYANAVARA
D/O SHANKARAPPA, AGE: MAJOR,
14. SRI C. SREENIVASULU
S/O GOVINDAPPA, AGE: MAJOR,
15. SRI MANJUNATHA T.M.,
AGE: MAJOR,
16. SRI RAVICHANDRA V.,
AGE: MAJOR
17. SRI. HULLUR SHARANAPPA
AGE: MAJOR,
18. SRI K.KRISHNAMURTHY S/O ANJINAYYA
AGE: MAJOR
THE RESPONDENT No.4 TO 18 ARE WORKING
AS TYPISTS/COMPUTER OPERATORS,
IN THE OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE, RAICHUR.
THROUGH THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, RAICHUR - 584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1;
SRI AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO
R10;R11 TO R15 AND R18 ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R16 &
R17 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 12.01.2024 &
10.09.2024 RESPECTIVELY)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
HIGH COURTS ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT
OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN
W.P.NO.208440/2017 DATED 22.04.2022 IN SO FAR AS
REJECTION OF PRAYER TO QUASH NOTIFICATION DATED
09.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, CORRIGENDUM-II DATED
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
WA No. 200138 of 2022
HC-KAR
11.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, NOTIFICATION DATED
15.03.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IS CONCERNED, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 03.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the learned counsel for appellants, learned
Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 so also
learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 10.
2. This writ appeal is filed praying to set aside the
order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.208440/2017, insofar as rejection of
prayer to quash the notification dated 09.04.2016 vide
Annexure-C, Corrigendum-II dated 11.04.2016 vide
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
Annexure-D and notification dated 15.03.2017 vide
Annexure-F.
3. The prayer sought by the petitioners in the writ
petition is to quash the notification dated 09.04.2016,
Corrigendum-II dated 11.04.2016 and notifications dated
15.03.2017 and 04.09.2017 and eligible list dated
10.11.2017 insofar as post of Typist/Computer Operator
and to direct the respondents to issue selection list to the
post of Typist/Computer Operator on the basis of the
notification dated 04.11.2015 by following the score card
dated 20.09.2010.
4. It is contended that the rules of the game
cannot be changed once the game has begun. It is
observed in the impugned order that it is settled law that
changing the criteria for selection of the employees, after
the commencement of the process of selection, is the
trump card for the petitioners. The learned Single Judge
observed that the petitioners cling to the ratio in the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of
K.Manjusree, etc., vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
another reported in AIR 2008 SC 1470 and in the matter
of N.T.Bevin Katti, etc., vs. Karnataka Public Service
Commission and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 1233 to
justify their stand. The very arguments that changes in the
selection criteria are notified and the petitioners have
consciously participated in the selection process without
any demur or protest and took a chance, waited for the
result and now cannot turn around to say that a change in
criteria midway through the selection process is
impermissible, is the response of the University of
Agricultural Sciences, Raichur/appointing authority (for
short, 'University') as against the contentions of the
petitioners in the writ petitions before the learned Single
Judge.
5. The learned Single Judge has taken note that
the other contesting respondents who apparently benefited
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
from the changed criteria would echo the same defence
and the respondents seek to take shelter under the
doctrine of estoppel and contend that parties cannot be
allowed to approbate and reprobate. The learned Single
Judge also taken note that all the petitioners in the writ
petitions questioned the notification dated 04.09.2017
wherein the evaluation criteria are partially changed after
the examinations. The petitioners also seek writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to proceed with the
selection as per the evaluation criteria prescribed in the
year 2010 and 2015.
6. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the
dates of publication of various notifications in the writ
petitions in paragraph-7 of the impugned order and we
would like to extract the same for convenience of this
Court and the same reads as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
Date Events
2009 University of agricultural sciences
Raichur is established.
2010 University of Agricultural Sciences Act
2010 is enacted.
20.09.2010 University of Agricultural Sciences,
Raichur issued the notification adopting
the Score Card method for recruiting
employees.
04.11.2015 University invited applications for filling
up various posts in different cadres.
31.12.2015 The Karnataka Civil Services (Direct
Recruitment by competitive examination
and selection) (General) Rules - 2006
were amended and competitive
examination was introduced for the
selection of employees.
2016 The Coordinate Committee of the
University of Agricultural Sciences, in
the State as well as the Board of the
University, decided to adopt the
procedure for employing 'C' group
employees as per the procedure
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
prescribed under the Rules 2006 as
amended in the year 2015 and
competitive examinations were
introduced for selection of 'C' group
employees.
09.04.2016 University issued notification modifying
Score Card method published on
20.09.2010. The decision was taken
pursuant to the decision of the
Coordinate Committee of the University
of Agricultural Sciences and the Board of
the University. The decision was taken in
view of the amendment to the 2006
Rules. Written tests were introduced for
the selection of 'C' group employees and
allocation of marks under the earlier
scorecard.
11.04.2016 Corrigendum to the notification dated
09.04.2016 issued, slightly modifying
the criteria prescribed under the
notification dated 09.04.2016.
29.04.2016 Three petitioners submitted a
representation to the University
requesting retention of the Score Card
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
method of 2010.
05.05.2016 Petitioner No.1 in W.P.Nos.207476-
477/2017 applied for the post of
Field/Lab Assistant.
03.12.2015 Petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.207476-
477/2017 applied for the post of
Assistant.
28.02.2017 Notice was published prescribing the
syllabus for various posts.
15.03.2017 The notification was published modifying
the criteria for selection for the post of
typist and computer operator. Practical
tests were introduced for the said posts.
13.04.2017 A call letter was sent to conduct the
prescribed tests for the post of Field/Lab
Assistants and the candidates were
informed that 60% minimum marks to
be secured to be eligible for verification.
15.04.2017 A call letter was sent to conduct the
prescribed tests for the post of Assistant
and the candidates were informed that
60% minimum marks were to be
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
secured to be eligible for verification.
26.04.2017 Written/Practical Tests were held for the
post of Field/Lab Assistants.
04.05.2017 Written/Practical Tests were held for the
post of Assistants.
04.08.2017, Key-Answers published.
26.08.2017
30.08.2017
08.03.2017 Co-Ordinate committee of the
agricultural universities of the State
resolved to have a uniform selection
process for 'C' group employees and
decided to adopt the procedure
prescribed under the Rules 2006 as
amended in 2015 and evaluate the
candidates based on written test/skill
tests and practical test.
29.08.2017 The board adopted the resolution dated
08.03.2017 passed by the Coordinate
committee and university
04.09.2017 The University, issued a notification
dropping the score card method and
notified that the candidates will be
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
evaluated based on written test/skill test
and practical test.
7. The learned Single Judge in paragraph-8 has
observed that the University has not yet framed the
Statute, however, has adopted the Statute of the
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. The said
Statute, does not prescribe any eligibility criteria for the
selection of the employees. The eligibility criteria and the
selection process are to be determined by the Board of the
University. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the
notification dated 20.09.2010 in terms of which the
University adopted the score card method for the
recruitment of service personnel, which was prevailing in
the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. The
notification further reveals that the score card method
adopted is subject to changes if any to be made by the
Co-ordination Committee. The score card method provided
evaluation of candidates under different heads. The
noticeable feature is, that no written test is prescribed
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
under this method. Pursuant to the above notification, the
applications were invited for various posts in the year
2012 and 2014. However, the recruitment process did not
proceed further till 2015 for various reasons. It is also
noticed by the learned Single Judge that one more
notification was issued on 04.11.2015 inviting applications
to fill up the vacancies. The applicants who applied under
earlier notifications of 2012 and 2014 were exempted from
applying again. They were permitted to produce the
additional documents if any, suggesting thereby, that the
applications under the earlier notification will be
considered for recruitment. On 09.04.2016, the University
issued a notification partially modifying the score card
which prescribed the criteria for the selection process of
service personnel. Written tests were introduced and in
addition, certain other changes were made to the original
score card. The notification dated 31.12.2015 issued by
the Government of Karnataka is said to be the reason for
the modification. In terms of the said notification dated
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
31.12.2015, Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment
by Competitive Examinations and Selection) (General)
(Amendment) Rules, 2015 which amended some of the
provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Direct
Recruitment by Competitive Examinations and Selection)
(General) Rules, 2006, was enacted. The amendments
came into effect on 31.12.2015.
8. Consequent upon the said amendment, on
11.04.2016, the University issued corrigendum and
extended the timeline to file applications up to
10.05.2016. The said notification at Annexure-D reveals
that the score card method is modified pursuant to the
Government Notification dated 31.12.2015, which notified
amendment to Rules - 2006 and also the Resolutions
passed in 24th meeting Coordination Committee and 26th
meeting of the Board of the Management. It is further
clarified that the candidates, who already submitted the
applications in response to the recruitment notification
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
dated 04.11.2015, need not apply again. They were
permitted to submit an additional document, if any, on or
before 10.05.2016. The modified method introduced is the
written test. The allocation of marks under certain other
heads was either deleted or altered to some extent.
9. The University in terms of the notification dated
28.02.2017 published the syllabus. In the said notification,
it is again specified that the tests will be conducted as per
the modified score card published on 09.04.2016. The
University took one more decision to partially modify the
score card for the post of Typist/Computer Operator, and
the modification was published on 15.03.2017. As per the
said notification, the practical test was introduced for
Typist/Computer Operator post.
10. The learned Single Judge took note that the
examinations were conducted by the University. Except for
three petitioners, all others participated in the examination
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
without raising any protest for the changes made in the
criteria for selection. Even the three petitioners who
submitted a representation on 29.04.2016, after the
publication of notification dated 09.04.2016, who
requested for retention of the earlier score card, did not
object to the modification introduced on 15.03.2017. Said
petitioners also did not object to the syllabus published
vide notification dated 28.02.2017.
11. The University published the key answers for
various tests conducted by the University. The key
answers were published on different dates for different
posts.
12. The learned Single Judge also taken note that
the University issued one more notification abolishing the
score card method on 04.09.2017. The notification says
the selection will be made based on written test/practical
test/skill tests which were already conducted by then. This
notification is under challenge. The decision in this regard
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
is said to have been taken pursuant to the decision of the
Coordination Committee and the Board of the University.
It is also the contention of the University that the decision
to drop score card method brings the selection process in
tune with the requirement of Rules, 2015. The University
also appointed the typist cum computer operator in the
University by issuing appointment orders. It is the fact
that the petitioners were not selected. Hence, the petitions
are filed for quashing of the notifications.
13. The learned Single Judge having considered the
contentions raised by the petitioners as well as the
respondents therein in paragraph-18 discussed with
regard to the method adopted for selection and in
paragraph-37 discussed indetail the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Manjusree's case (supra) as well
as N.T.Bevin Katti's case (supra) in paragraph-40. The
learned Single Judge in paragraph-38 of the impugned
order has observed that there are certain distinguishable
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
factors in K.Manjusree's case (supra) and the case on
hand which were extracted in paragraph-38. The learned
Single Judge also observed that after the examination, the
impugned notification dated 04.09.2017 is issued. This
change is introduced after the examinations were held as
noticed above. The learned Single Judge has taken note of
the principles laid down in the N.T.Bevin Katti's case
(supra) in paragraph-40. In the said case, it is held that
unless the amended rules are made retrospective, the
rules prevailing as on the date of inviting application for
the posts shall be followed and the ratio in N.T.Bevin
Katti's case (supra) is not applicable. The learned Single
Judge has also observed in paragraph-42 that 'the rules of
the game cannot be changed after the game has begun', is
a principle evolved by the Courts while interpreting the
facts and law applicable to a given case. The learned
Single Judge at paragraphs-49 to 51 in detail discussed
regarding effect of participation in the examination under
the changed criteria. An observation is also made in
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
paragraph-51 that the petitioners participated in the
examination process which was held under the notification
dated 09.04.2016. Thus, the petitioners who have applied
after the notification dated 09.04.2016 cannot make a
claim to be considered as per the guidelines prevailing
before 09.04.2016. The prayer of the petitioners to
consider their eligibility in terms of the notification dated
20.09.2010 and 04.11.2015 cannot be considered for the
simple reason that these petitioners applied for the posts
only after the publication of modified eligibility criteria in
terms of the notification dated 09.04.2016. The learned
Single Judge in detail discussed the same and particularly,
in paragraph-55 observed that admittedly, in the instant
case, there is no binding law that would come to the
rescue of the petitioners to say that the examination is to
be held as per the law. In the absence of law relating to
criteria for selection of employees, the board of the
University has evolved certain eligibility criteria and the
eligibility criteria are modified on the ground that the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
modified eligibility criteria will be in tune with the eligibility
criteria fixed by the other Universities in the State.
14. The learned Single Judge at paragraph-56 of
the impugned order has in detail observed that another
significant factor to be noticed in this case is, the
Corrigendum-II dated 11.04.2016, issued under the
notification dated 09.04.2016. This corrigendum reveals
that the decision to follow the selection criteria prescribed
in the amendment Rules 2015 is taken by the University in
the 26th meeting of the Board. The Board's decision is
preceded by the 24th meeting of the Coordinate
committee. The decision to introduce the written tests is
taken earlier to 09.04.2016.
15. The learned Single Judge at paragraph-57 has
observed as under:
"57. In the light of the discussions made
above, the findings are:-
i. The decision of the University to drop
the Score Card method after conducting
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
the examination in terms of the
notification dated 09.04.2016 and
15.03.2017 is contrary to the law
declared by the Apex Court in
K.Manjusree's case. The University
having taken the decision to hold the
examination in terms of criteria fixed
under notification dated 09.04.2016 in
which the petitioners participated
without protest, could not have partially
dropped the eligibility criteria fixed
under notification dated 09.04.2016.
Thus, the impugned notification dated
04.09.2017 issued by the 3rd
respondent dropping the Score Card
method prescribed in the notification
dated 09.04.2016 is impermissible and
is to be quashed.
ii. The changes introduced in the selection
criteria vide notification dated
09.04.2016, and 15.03.2017 (for the
post of typist/computer operator) did
not prevent the petitioners from
participating in the examination and the
petitioners participated in the
examinations/tests. The petitioners
have waived their right, if any, to
challenge the changed criteria by
participating in the process. Thus the
petitions challenging the notifications
dated 09.04.2016, 11.04.2016 and
15.03.2017 are not maintainable.
iii. The petitioners 4 and 5 in W.P. No.
208440/2017 and the petitioner no.1 in
W.P. Nos. 207476-477/2017 who
applied after 09.04.2016 i.e., the date
on which criteria are changed, cannot
claim the right to be considered for
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
selection under the criteria fixed in
2015.
iv. There is no violation of any law or
infringement of any right of the
petitioners. The petitioners have not
acquired any right in terms of selection
criteria for the year 2010 and 2015.
Thus the petitions seeking a direction
against the respondents to hold the
selection process in terms of criteria of
the year 2010 and 2015 are not
maintainable."
16. Having considered all the materials on record,
the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order
quashing notification dated 04.09.2017 at Annexure-L and
notification dated 10.11.2017 at Annexure-M and rejected
the prayer to quash notification dated 09.04.2016 at
Annexure-C, Corrigendum-II dated 11.04.2016 at
Annexure-D and notification dated 15.03.2017 at
Annexure-F. The learned Single Judge has also rejected
the prayer to direct the respondents to proceed with the
selection on the basis of the notifications dated
20.09.2010 and 04.11.2015.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
17. The learned Single Judge has also observed
that since the selection criteria held pursuant to
notification dated 09.04.2016 are changed after
conducting the examinations, the respondents are directed
to prepare the fresh list of selected candidates in terms of
eligibility criteria prescribed under the notification dated
09.04.2016. Since the criteria for the post of
Typist/Computer Operator are partially modified in terms
of notification dated 15.03.2017, the selection list of
Typist/Computer Operator is to be prepared as per the
eligibility criteria prescribed under the notifications dated
09.04.2016 and 15.03.2017.
18. Now the main contention of the learned counsel
for the appellants in this writ appeal is that the learned
Single Judge erred in not considering the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Full Bench decision
in K.Manjusree's case (supra) and N.T.Bevin Katti's case
(supra). The action of University in issuing the impugned
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
notification dated 09.04.2016 and notification dated
04.09.2017 withdrawing score card procedure is illegal and
arbitrary and the same is issued with malafide intention
and without any basis.
19. The notification was issued for selection by
recruitment to various posts of service personnel in the
University long back i.e., on 04.11.2015. The learned
counsel also contended that respondent No.3 changing the
selection procedure after commencement of selection
process that too at the fag end of the selection process by
modification of score card and withdrawing of score card
method is illegal and arbitrary and requires interference of
this Court. Learned counsel in his arguments vehemently
contended that the process adopted for selection of the
candidates is nothing but a malafide with an intention to
defeat the rights of the appellants.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
20. Learned counsel in support of his arguments
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors., vs. Rajasthan High
Court and Ors., reported in (2013)4 SCC 540 and brought
to the notice of this Court the relevant facts and the
principles laid down in the said judgment particularly,
paragraph-42 wherein it is observed that the recruitment
process commences from the issuance of the
advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling
up of vacancies. The eligibility criteria for being placed in
the selection list, notified at the commencement of the
recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through
the recruitment process unless the extant rules so permit
or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant
rules so permit. However, where the rules are non-
existent or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the
gaps.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
21. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivanandan C.T.,
and others vs. High Court of Kerala reported in (2024)3
SCC 799 and brought to the notice of this Court
paragraphs-15 and 16 of the said judgment, wherein it
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tej
Prakash Pathak's case (supra) and observed that where
the statutory rules are silent, they can be supplemented in
a manner consistent with the object and spirit of the Rules
by an administrative order and in the present case,
statutory rules expressly provided that the selection list
would be drawn up on the basis of the aggregate of marks
obtained in the written examination and the viva voce.
22. He also relied upon the Full Bench decision of
this Court in the case of Chandru H.N., Vs. State of
Karnataka and others reported in 2011(3) Kar., L.J., 562
and brought to the notice of this Court paragraphs-11 and
12 of the judgment, wherein discussion was made with
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
regard to the principles laid down in the judgment and
finding given in Ramesh Babu K., vs. State of Karnataka
and others in W.P.No.28507/2009 disposed of on
19.01.2010 at paragraph-9 and also discussion was made
referring the decision in the case of Shivanandan (supra).
23. Learned counsel also relied upon the Full Bench
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salam
Samarjeet Singh vs. High Court of Manipur at Imphal
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2316 regarding effect of
participation in selection process in changed rules or
administrative orders and brought the notice of this Court
to paragraph-14 of the judgment, wherein discussed with
regard to existing rule at the time of issuance of
recruitment notification and at paragraphs-15 and 16
discussed with regard to the evaluation and selection of
the petitioner therein. At paragraph-17, it is observed
that the relevant advertisement for filling up the vacancy
in the entry-level post of District Judge was initiated
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
through the advertisement published on 15.05.2013 which
reflected that the recruitment shall be governed by the
MJS Rules, 2005. The counsel also brought to the notice of
this Court to paragraph-18 of the judgment, wherein it is
observed that subsequent amendment to the Rules cannot
be applied to the present recruitment process. At
paragraph-21 of the judgment, discussion was made that
the principle of estoppel cannot override the law.
24. The learned counsel also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dr.(Major) Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar reported in
(2019)20 SCC 17 and brought to the notice of this Court
factual facts of the case and the discussion made in
paragraph-15 of the judgment so also paragraph Nos.16
and 17 wherein it is held that, it is settled law that the
principle of estoppel prevents a candidate from challenging
the selection process.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
25. The learned counsel also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vivek
Kaisth vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2024)2
SCC 269 and brought to the notice of this Court
paragraphs-40, 41 and 50 of the said judgment wherein
held that nothing has been brought to our notice which
may suggest any favouritism, nepotism or so-called blame
as to the conduct of these two appellants, in securing
these appointments.
26. The counsel referring to all these judgments
contended that the question would arise before the Court,
whether the University can change the rules once the
selection process is commenced and when the objections
to change of rules are filed, without considering the same,
whether the University can proceed in the selection
process.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
27. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
University in his arguments vehemently contended that
the principle laid down in the judgment referred in
K.Manjusree's case and N.T.Bevin Katti's case (supra) are
not applicable to the case on hand and the learned Single
Judge in detail discussed the same. He also contended
that the proposition laid down in the judgments relied
upon by the learned counsel for the appellants before this
Court is not in dispute. The counsel also contended that
when the modification in the selection process was made,
the appellants have not filed any objections, instead, they
participated in the selection process and only when they
are unsuccessful, the same is challenged.
28. The counsel further contended that nothing is
attributed about the malafide. He has also contended that
when the earlier score card was issued and subsequently,
when the same was modified on 15.03.2017 after the 3rd
score card, the same is notified. He also contended that
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
though objections are filed on 29.04.2016, but when the
third score card was issued, no objections were filed and
without any protest, the appellants appeared for the
examination and participated in all the selection process.
The learned Single Judge rightly discussed in detail
including the principles laid down in the case of
K.Manjusree and N.T.Bevin Katti's case (supra) and in
paragraph No.55 rightly observed that in the absence of
law relating to criteria for selection of employees, the
Board of the University has evolved certain eligibility
criteria and the eligibility criteria are modified on the
ground that the modified eligibility criteria will be in tune
with the eligibility criteria fixed by other Universities in the
State. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court
the decision to introduce the written test is taken earlier to
09.04.2016 and the Board decision is preceded by the 24th
meeting of the Co-ordinate Committee. In paragraph
No.57 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge
has observed that the University having taken the decision
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
to hold the examination in terms of criteria fixed under
notification dated 09.04.2016 in which the petitioners
participated without protest, could not have partially
dropped the eligibility criteria fixed under notification
dated 09.04.2016. Thus, the impugned notification dated
04.09.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent therein dropping
the Score Card method prescribed in the notification dated
09.04.2016 is impermissible and hence, the same has to
be quashed. In point No.ii, made it clear that changes
introduced in the selection criteria vide notification dated
09.04.2016 and 15.03.2017 did not prevent the
petitioners from participating in the examination and the
petitioners participated in the examinations/tests. The
petitioners have waived their right, if any, to challenge the
changed criteria by participating in the process. Hence, the
challenge to the same is not maintainable. Therefore, the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does
not require any interference.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
29. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
appellants and learned counsel for the respondents and
considering the material available on record, the question
that arise for our consideration are:
i. Whether the learned Single Judge has
committed an error in observing that without
any protest having participated in the
examination/test, the appellants/petitioners
have waived their right and whether it
requires interference of this Court?
ii. What order?
30. Having considered the material available on
record, it is not in dispute that the notifications are issued
for the recruitment and it is also not in dispute that while
conducting the examinations and interview, followed the
procedure of the other Universities. It is also not disputed
that the events are taken place subsequent to the
establishment of the University in the year 2009. The
dates of events are extracted in paragraph-6 of this
judgment. It is also not in dispute that the notification was
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
published by modifying the criteria for selection to the post
of Typist/Computer Operator on 15.03.2017. It is also
important to note that the notice was published
prescribing the syllabus for various posts and the same is
also not objected. The facts that call letters are issued,
written and practical tests were held on different dates and
the Board has adopted the resolution dated 08.03.2017
passed by the Co-ordinate Committee and the University
also not in dispute. The University issued a notification
dropping the score card method and notified that the
candidates will be evaluated based on written tests/skill
tests and practical tests. The fact that the University has
not yet framed the Statute is not in dispute and that the
University has adopted the Statute of the University of
Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, is also not in dispute. The
said Statute also does not prescribe the eligibility criteria
for the selection of employees. The eligibility criteria and
the selection process are to be determined by the Board of
the University. It is also important to note that the
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
modification of the notification was made and the same
was published, the appellants have not filed any objections
and participated in the said selection process. Though the
notification modifying the selection method was issued on
15.03.2017, the exam was conducted on 25.04.2017 and
the same was after 40 days. Thus, 40 days time was
given. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for
appellants that there was no time to challenge the same
and to file objections cannot be accepted. The process was
not conducted immediately after the notification dated
15.03.2017 and the fact that modification was notified is
not in dispute. After the publication and notifying the same
only all the selection process was done. It is also
important to note that when the third score card was
issued, the same was not objected and no protest was
made. The appellants participated in the examination and
when they are unsuccessful, they challenged the same.
Hence, the contention of the counsel appearing for the
appellants that the principle laid down in the judgment in
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
K.Manjusree's case and N.T.Bevin Katti's case are not
considered cannot be accepted. No doubt, the counsel
appearing for the appellants during the course of his
argument relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex
Court. The respondents have also not disputed the
propositions laid down in the said judgments.
31. In the case on hand, when the modification was
made and though the same was within the knowledge of
the appellants, they have not challenged the same,
instead, they participated and appeared in the
examination and when they are unsuccessful, they filed
the writ petition before the Court. All these factors were
taken note of by the learned Single Judge while passing
the impugned order. Even detailed discussion was made
that changes made to bring the eligibility criteria on par
with Rules, 2015 are impermissible when the Rules are not
formally adopted. Apart from that, the grounds which have
been urged were also taken note of in paragraph-40 and
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
the principles laid down in the judgment of K.Manjusree's
case in paragraph-37 and observed that there are certain
distinguishable factors in K.Manjusree's case and the case
on hand and the same were mentioned in paragraph-38 of
the impugned order.
32. The learned Single Judge has also observed
that after the examinations, the impugned notification
dated 04.09.2017 is issued. This change is introduced
after the examinations were held as noticed above. Thus,
the impugned notification, changing the criteria after the
examination is in the teeth of ratio in K.Manjusree's case.
However, to what extent the appellants/petitioners who
participated in the examination after changes were
introduced can be granted the relief is a question to be
taken note of by relying upon the decision in the case of
N.T.Bevin Katti.
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
33. Having considered the decision of the University
in changing the criteria for selection, in the light of the
proposition, the learned Single Judge at paragraph-48
taken note of the effect of participation. No doubt, learned
counsel for appellants relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salam Samarjeet Singh
(supra) and brought to the notice of this Court
paragraphs-14 to 18 and 21 of the said judgment. Having
considered the factual aspects of the said case and facts in
the case on hand, the same will not come to the aid of the
appellants. The learned Single Judge taking note of the
material on record particularly, at paragraph-57 of the
impugned order observed that the notification dated
09.04.2016 is impermissible and the same has to be
quashed. However, taken note of the changes introduced
in selection criteria vide notification dated 09.04.2016 and
15.03.2017 (for the post of typist/computer operator) did
not prevent the petitioners from participating in the
examination and the petitioners participated in the
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
examinations/tests. It is rightly observed by the learned
Single Judge that the appellants have waived their right, if
any, to challenge the changed criteria by participating in
the process. When the same was not challenged and the
appellants participated in the selection process, the
contention of the learned counsel for appellants that no
proper opportunity was given cannot be accepted. There
was a time gap to challenge the same. Learned counsel for
appellants also not disputed the fact there was 40 days
time. The same was not challenged even after making
changes, participated in the process and now when they
are unsuccessful, they cannot question the same. Though
the appellants raised their contention of malafide against
the University, the same falls on ground in the absence of
any proof to that effect. When enquired, the learned
counsel is unable to point out anything to substantiate the
said contention. Hence, the learned Single Judge rightly
came to the conclusion that the petitions challenging the
notifications dated 09.04.2016, 11.04.2016 and
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
15.03.2017 are not maintainable. We do not find any
ground to reverse the finding of the learned Single Judge
since the same is well reasoned. While quashing some of
the notifications, the learned Single Judge categorically
made it clear that since the selection criteria pursuant to
notification dated 09.04.2016 are changed after
conducting the examinations, the respondents are directed
to prepare the fresh list of selected candidates in terms of
the eligibility criteria prescribed under the notification
dated 09.04.2016. Since the criteria for the post of
typist/computer operator are partially modified in terms of
the notification dated 15.03.2017, the selection list of the
typist/computer operator is to be prepared as per the
eligibility criteria prescribed under the notification dated
09.04.2016 and 15.03.2017. When such observation is
made, we do not find any error on the part of the learned
Single Judge in declining to grant the relief for quashing of
notifications. Hence, we find no merit in writ appeal.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5379-DB
HC-KAR
Therefore, we answer the above point for consideration in
negative.
34. In view of the discussions made above, we
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
NB
CT:NI
