[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Bhavya B.S vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
WP No. 26642 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26642 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. BHAVYA B.S.
W/O SRI YUVARAJA B. C.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS PHYSICS LECTURER,
MINORITY MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL
PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
GURUMARNAHALLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116.
AND RESIDING AT:
IMPANA NILAYA,
AMBIKA NAGAR, 2ND CROSS,
NEAR GURUBHAVAN,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
(BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADV.)
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF MINORITIES,
MAULANA ABDUL KALAM AAZAD BHAVAN,
NO.16 C, MILLERS TANK BED AREA,
VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560052.
-2-
WP No. 26642 of 2023
3. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
UDYOG SOUDHA,
BENGALURU -560001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL
MINORITY MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL,
PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
GURUMARNAHALLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT- 573116.
5. MS. BHAGYASHRI LANDE
C/O MIRAJKAR AUTOMOBILES,
CHIKKERUR, HIREKERUR TALUK,
HAVERI - 581111.
6. MS. SAVITRI KUMBAR
AT POST AINAPUR,
ATHANI TALUK, KUMAR GALLI,
BELAGAVI - 591303.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SMT. M.R. SINCHANA, ADV. FOR R3
SRI RABHAVENDRA G GAYATRI, ADV. FOR R5
R4 & R6 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORDER DATED 16/11/2023 IN
APPLICATION NO.4714/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A
AND THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.PSC 22 RTB 2017 DATED
30/09/2023 (REVISED FINAL SELECT LIST) PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-Q PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND NOTIFICATION
BEARING NO.PSC 22 RTB 2017 DATED 30/09/2023 (REVISED
ADDITIONAL SELECT LIST) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-R PUBLISHED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT KPSC AND ETC
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 23.02.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
-3-
WP No. 26642 of 2023
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The above writ petition is by unsuccessful applicant
before the Tribunal questioning order dated 16.11.2023 in
Application No.4714/2023 rejecting petitioner's prayer to
quash revised final select list published under notification
dated 30.09.2023 and revised additional select list dated
30.09.2023 of the cadre of Lecturer in Physics.
2. Brief facts leading to the above writ petition are
that, the respondent-KPSC issued notification dated
23.03.2018 calling applications to fill up various posts in
the Morarji Desai Pre-University Residential Colleges
including that of Lecturer in Physics. The petitioner with
qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed., and M.Sc., applied for the
post of Lecturer in Physics claiming reservation under II-A
Women category. It is the case of the petitioner that she
participated in the selection process by writing the
competitive examination wherein she secured 139 marks
including interview marks. It is stated that the petitioner
was provisionally selected for the post of Lecturer in
-4-
WP No. 26642 of 2023
Physics under II-A, Women category and the name of the
petitioner found place at Sl.No.6. After considering the
objections received to the provisional select list, the third
respondent - KPSC published final select list on
11.05.2020 wherein also, the petitioner was placed at
Sl.No.6.
3. It is stated that the petitioner was informed by
endorsement dated 22.05.2020 that she has been selected
as Lecturer in Physics under II-A Women category.
Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with order of
appointment dated 08.07.2021 as Lecturer in Physics and
was posted to Morarji Desai Residential Pre-University
College, Gurumaranahalli, Channarayanapatna Taluk. It is
stated that the petitioner reported to duty on 12.07.2021
and she was working as such.
4. After petitioner's appointment and more than
two years from the date of publication of final select list,
the third respondent - KPSC published revised final select
list dated 30.09.2023 deleting the name of the petitioner
-5-
WP No. 26642 of 2023
and including the name of 5th respondent under Category-
IIA, Women. Questioning the revised final select list dated
30.09.2023, the petitioner was before the Tribunal and
Tribunal rejected the petitioner's prayer observing that in
the absence of necessary parties, application is not
maintainable and as the petitioner has not made any
prayer to include her name in the revised select list.
Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is
before this Court in this writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh R. Bhagat
for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent Nos.1 and 2,
Smt.M.R.Sinchana, learned counsel for respondent No.3
and Sri.Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned counsel for
respondent No.5. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
6. Learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh R. Bhagat for
petitioner would submit that the petitioner is selected and
appointed as Lecturer in Physics under IIA-Women
category in pursuance to the final select list dated
-6-
WP No. 26642 of 2023
11.05.2020, which was in accordance with the relevant
Rules. The petitioner has worked for more than two years
and without providing any opportunity, she has been
deleted from the final select list dated 11.05.2020.
Further, learned counsel for petitioner would contend that
the Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by
Competitive Examinations and Selection) (General) Rules,
2006 (for short, 'Rules, 2006') would not provide for
preparation of revised final or additional select list.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since
the petitioner is working for more than two years, he
prays for saving of the appointment of the petitioner and
places reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in that regard. Further, he submits that there is no fault or
misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in the
selection process. As such, he would pray for allowing the
writ petition.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3
- KPSC referring to the affidavit dated 16.02.2026 of the
Secretary, KPSC would submit that the petitioner has
-7-
WP No. 26642 of 2023
secured only 30.8888% whereas respondent No.5 had
secured 35.2222% and admittedly, respondent No.5 is
more meritorious than the petitioner in the II-A, Women
category. Learned counsel would further submit that due
to a genuine oversight, the petitioner was selected without
proper verification and as such, the Commission published
a revised select list on 30.09.2023, wherein the name of
the petitioner got deleted. Further, learned counsel would
submit that the officials who were responsible for such
discrepancy have been issued with show cause notice and
warning has been issued.
8. Learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra G. Gayatri for
respondent No.5 would submit that the fifth respondent is
more meritorious than the petitioner under II-A, Women
category and she would be entitled for selection as against
the petitioner. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of
the writ petition.
9. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition
-8-
WP No. 26642 of 2023
papers, the points which falls for our consideration are as
to,
a) Whether the petitioner would be entitled to
continue as Lecturer in Physics, in pursuance to
her appointment order dated 08.07.2021?
b) Whether the order of the Tribunal requires
interference?
10. Answer to both the above points would be in
the affirmative for the following reasons:
The respondent - KPSC in pursuance to notification
dated 28.03.2018 invited applications to fill up various
posts including that of Lecturer in Physics in Morarji Desai
Residential Pre-University College. The petitioner with
qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed., and M.Sc., applied for the
post of Lecturer in Physics under II-A Women category.
She participated in the competitive written examination
and got selected in the provisional select list published
under notification dated 10.03.2020, wherein the
petitioner was placed at Sl.No.6 under II-A, Women
category. The provisional select list provided an
opportunity to the affected candidates to file objections.
-9-
WP No. 26642 of 2023
Thereafter, final select was published on 11.05.2020
wherein also, the petitioner got selected and she was
placed at Sl.No.6 under II-A Women category. The
petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Physics under II-A
Women category by O.M., dated 08.07.2021 (Annexure-N)
and she was posted to Morarji Desai Residential Pre-
University College, Channarayapatna, Hassan District.
11. However, more than two years after the
petitioner's appointment, revised final select list dated
30.09.2023 was published by third respondent and revised
additional list dated 30.09.2023 was also published in
respect of Lecturer in Physics. The said revised final select
list is without providing any opportunity to the petitioner
or to other candidates who have already been selected
under the final select list published on 11.05.2020 and
appointed and working under O.M., dated 08.07.2021.
Deleting the name of an appointee from final select list
would result in serious civil consequences. In that, she
would be deprived of employment and she would also be
deprived of her livelihood. Moreover, there is no fault or
- 10 -
WP No. 26642 of 2023
misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in her
selection and appointment. For the mistake of officials of
the third respondent - KPSC, the petitioner cannot be
made to suffer, that too, after more than two years of her
appointment and working.
12. The third respondent - KPSC is very casual in
its approach, that too, while deleting the name of the
selected and appointed candidate from the final select list.
The affidavit filed by the Secretary, KPSC dated
16.02.2026, paragraph 10 reads as follows:
"10. The Karnataka Public Service
Commission, due to a genuine oversight, selected
the petitioner without proper verification of the
candidate's marks and prepared the selection list.
The said selection was neither intentional nor
deliberate, but occurred purely by mistake human
error."
13. The affidavit of the same Secretary dated
20.02.2026, paragraphs 4 to 7 reads as follows:
"4. I submit that, on the direction issued in
the proceedings of the Commission, the show cause
notices came to be issued on 07.09.2023 to Smt.
- 11 -
WP No. 26642 of 2023
Shobha Basavaraj, who was working as the system
analyst and Smt. H.M Latha, who was working as
the Junior Programmer (Computer Branch). The
copies of the show cause notice are produced
and marked as Documents No.6 and 7.
5. I submit that, Smt. Shobha Basavaraj, who
was working as the system analyst, filed her reply
to the show cause notice on 11/09/2023, and the
reply of Smt. H.M Latha, who was working as the
Junior Programmer (Computer Branch) on
08/09/2023. The copy of the replies dated
11/09/2023 and 08/09/2023 are produced and
marked as Documents No.8 and 9.
6. I further submit that, after considering the
reply, a warning came to be issued to both the said
erring officials. The copy of the warning notices
dated 09/10/2025 is produced and marked as
Document Nos. 10 and 11.
7. I further submit that one of the erring
officials, Smt. Shobha Basavaraj, in another
instance, was placed under suspension, and a
departmental enquiry was initiated, and the
findings have been kept in a sealed cover and
placed before the Commission for its decision on
the same. In the meantime, the said erring officer,
Smt. Shobha Basavaraj has superannuated from
service on 31.05.2025. A copy of the notification
- 12 -
WP No. 26642 of 2023
bearing no. PSC 176/EST/2022-23/250, dated
31/05/2025, is produced and marked as
Document No.12."
A reading of the portion of the above affidavit of the
Secretary, KPSC indicates the manner in which the
selection process is being handled. Mistake of the officials
of the KPSC has given rise to a hope and life to the
petitioner. But, subsequent action of the respondent No.3
- KPSC in deleting the name of the petitioner from the
final select list of Lecturer in Physics under II-A Women
category that too, after more than two years of her
appointment has shattered the hope and life of the
petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner has lost her
opportunities of selection to any other public employment,
which cannot be restored at this stage.
14. For the mistake of the officials of the KPSC, the
officials have been only warned and no punishment is
inflicted on them and on the other hand, the petitioner has
been made to suffer for no fault of hers. It is true that, but
for the mistake of the officials of the third respondent -
- 13 -
WP No. 26642 of 2023
KPSC, the petitioner would not have got selected. But, the
mistake of the officials of third respondent - KPSC has
resulted in selection and appointment of petitioner and she
is working for more than two years as on the date of
publication of revised final select list. The Hon'ble Apex
Court on previous occasions, in identical fact situations has
taken a sympathetic view when a candidate was selected
wrongly due to no fault of his and when many years had
lapsed since the selection process. In VIKAS PRATAP
SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGAR1, in an identical fact
situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 22, 25, 26
to 28 has held as under:
"22. The pristine maxim of fraus et jus
nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell
together) has never lost its temper over the
centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and
body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law
that no legal right in respect of appointment to a
said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the
employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation
or mala fide. (See Vizianagaram Social Welfare
Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari
1
(2013) 14 SCC 494
- 14 -
WP No. 26642 of 2023
Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 :
(1990) 14 ATC 766] , S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1] and Union of
India v. M. Bhaskaran [1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 :
1996 SCC (L&S) 162 : (1996) 32 ATC 94] .) It is
also settled law that a person appointed
erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of
wrongful appointment jeopardising the interests of
the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in
cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is
made without any mistake on the part of the
appointee and upon discovery of such error or
irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court
has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various
factors including bona fide of the candidate in such
appointment and length of service of the candidate
after such appointment (see Vinodan T. v. University
of Calicut [(2002) 4 SCC 726:2002 SCC (L&S)
606]; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi [(2006) 1 SCC
667 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 190] ).
Xxxxxxx
25. This Court in Gujarat State Dy. Executive
Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat [1994 Supp (2)
SCC 591 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1159 : (1994) 28 ATC
78] although recorded a finding that appointments
given under the "wait list" were not in accordance
with law but refused to set aside such appointments
in view of length of service (five years and more).
- 15 -
WP No. 26642 of 2023
26. In Buddhi Nath Chaudhary v. Abahi
Kumar [(2001) 3 SCC 328 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 589 :
(2001) 2 SCR 18] even though the appointments
were held to be improper, this Court did not disturb
the appointments on the ground that the incumbents
had worked for several years and had gained
experience and observed: (SCC p. 331, para 6)
"6. ... We have extended equitable
considerations to such selected candidates who
have worked in the post for a long period...."
(See M.S. Mudhol v. S.D. Halegkar [(1993) 3
SCC 591 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 986 : (1993) 25
ATC 91 : (1993) 2 LLJ 1159] and Tridip Kumar
Dingal v. State of W.B. [(2009) 1 SCC 768 :
(2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 119] )
27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error
committed by the respondent Board in the matter
of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be
attributed to the appellants as they have neither
been found to have committed any fraud or
misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first
merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous
model answer key or the specious result
contributed to them. Had the contrary been the
case, it would have justified their ouster upon re-
evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy
from this Court irrespective of their length of
service.
28. In our considered view, the appellants
have successfully undergone training and are
- 16 -
WP No. 26642 of 2023
efficiently serving the respondent State for more
than three years and undoubtedly their termination
would not only impinge upon the economic security
of the appellants and their dependants but also
adversely affect their careers. This would be highly
unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are
innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of
the answer scripts. However, their continuation in
service should neither give any unfair advantage to
the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the
candidates selected qua the revised merit list."
15. It is not made known whether the fifth
respondent had filed objections to the provisional select
list published on 10.03.2020 and why the fifth respondent
had not challenged her non-selection in pursuance to the
final select list published under notification dated
11.05.2020. It is also not made known by KPSC, under
which provision KPSC exercised its power to publish
revised final select list, after more than two years of
selection and appointment. The only reason indicated in
the affidavit of the Secretary of the third respondent -
KPSC is that they noticed the mistake while preparing the
additional select list. But, that cannot be a reason to revise
- 17 -
WP No. 26642 of 2023
the final select list published earlier, without providing any
opportunity that too, when the fifth respondent had not
challenged the petitioner's appointment and when she has
failed to file any objection to the provisional select list
published on 10.03.2020.
16. The Tribunal committed an error in dismissing
the application on the ground that necessary parties have
not been impleaded while challenging the revised select
list. However, the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the
petitioner has impleaded candidate who is selected in her
place as fifth respondent, which would be more than
sufficient to examine the claim of the petitioner.
17. For the reasons recorded above, the following:
ORDER
a) The writ petition is allowed in part.
b) Order dated 16.11.2023 in Application
No.4714/2023 passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru is set
aside.
- 18 -
c) Deletion of petitioner's name in the revised final
select list dated 30.09.2023 of Lecturer in
Physics under II-A Women category is declared
as illegal.
d) The petitioner shall be continued as Lecturer in
Physics, in pursuance to the final select list
dated 11.05.2020 and appointment O.M., dated
08.07.2021 (Annexure-A).
e) However, selection of fifth respondent as
Lecturer in Physics under revised select list
dated 30.09.2023 is not interfered with. It is
open for the Government - respondent Nos.1
and 2 to consider case of the respondent No.5
for appointment, if vacancies are available.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms
