c. PASS any other Order, as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to conduct fresh test as
notified in the notifications dated 03.08.2017 in Nos.
A1P1C(C1)/NHK and A1P1C(C1)/HK and as directed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court by its order dated 23.09.2025 in
SLP No.21754/2025 which are at ANNEXURE-A and A1
to the writ petition; so far as Petitioner is concerned.
(iii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court deems it proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice; and.
In W.P.No. 953/2026:
A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Quashing the
impugned Notification bearing No.ED/
KEA/Recruitment/CR-5123/2023 dated 19.11.2025
issued by Respondent No.3 (ANNEXURE F), insofar as it
schedules a re-examination for the Compulsory Kannada
Language Test and prescribes an Objective (MCQ) Mode,
as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
B. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Quashing the
impugned Score List dated Nil (ANNEXURE-F2) published
by Respondent No.3, which pertains to the illegal
Kannada Language Examination held on 28.12.2025.
C. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Quashing the
impugned Circular bearing No. A1P1C (C1) dated
24.12.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE-
G2), and the Government Circular bearing No.
CiAaSuE/77/HKC/2025 dated 03.06.2025 (ΑNNEXURE-
G1), in so far as they arbitrarily attempt to apply a new
reservation policy retrospectively to the 2017
recruitment, thereby altering the Seat Allocation method
for Hyderabad-Karnataka (HK) and Non-HK candidates.
D. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS Directing the
Respondents to restore and uphold the validity of the
Score List dated 05.03.2025 bearing
No.ED/KEA/KPCL/2024 (Annexure-E1), pertaining to the
valid Kannada Language Examination conducted on
04.02.2025 in Descriptive Mode.
E. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS Directing the
Respondents to prepare the Final Selection List strictly in
accordance with the methodology followed in the Final
Selection List dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-E2),
specifically by considering Hyderabad-Karnataka (HK)
candidates for Non-HK seats only if they had explicitly
applied for and paid the fee for the Non-HK application
and submitted specific willingness for the same, as per
the rules existing at the time of the 2017 Notification.
F. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS As this Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case, including the award of costs, in the interest of
justice and equity."
2. The brief facts of the case in
W.P.Nos.39094/2025, 2143/2026 and 2328/2026 are
that the respondent -- Karnataka Power Corporation
Limited (for short, 'KPCL') issued a notification dated
03.08.2017, inviting applications for recruitment to
the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Junior
Engineer (Electrical), Assistant Engineer (Mechanical),
Junior Engineer (Mechanical), Assistant Engineer
(Civil), and Junior Engineer (Civil). The petitioners
submitted applications for the posts of Assistant
Engineer, Junior Engineer, and Chemical Supervisor
and appeared for the written test conducted by
respondent - KPCL on 21.01.2018.
3. Respondent - KPCL, by order dated
23.06.2018, cancelled the written test held on
21.01.2018. Subsequently, a notification dated
16.07.2018 was issued by respondent - KPCL for the
conduct of a fresh written test through the Karnataka
Examination Authority (for short, 'KEA'). The
cancellation of the earlier test was challenged by
certain candidates in W.P.Nos.34850-34874/2018.
The said writ petitions were dismissed by order dated
01.02.2019, upholding the cancellation. Being
aggrieved by the said order, writ appeals were filed in
W.A.Nos.802-821/2019 and connected matter, which
were also dismissed by order dated 14.10.2019.
4. The re-test was conducted by respondent -
KEA on 18.02.2024, in which the petitioners
participated. Respondent - KEA issued a notification
dated 08.05.2024 along with the provisional score list,
informing the candidates that one-third marks would
be deducted for every wrong answer. Some of the
candidates filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14233/2024,
challenging the provisional score list dated
08.05.2024. The said writ petition was dismissed
holding that the negative marking was a part of the
earlier examination and also that the re-test held on
18.02.2024 was to be conducted on similar terms,
including the application of negative marking. On the
same day, respondent - KEA issued the final score
list.
5. The final score list was also challenged by
some of the candidates by filing W.P.No.16517/2024.
The said writ petition was dismissed in the light of the
order passed in W.P.No. 14233/2024. Being aggrieved
by the orders passed in W.P.No. 16517/2024 and
W.P.No.14233/2024, some of the candidates filed writ
appeals in W.A.No.1298/2024 and connected matters.
By order dated 28.05.2025, the writ appeals were
allowed, and the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge were set aside, directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3
to conduct a re-examination for all candidates who
appeared in the examination on 18.02.2024 pursuant
to the notification dated 03.08.2017, after
communicating the negative marking.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, some of the
candidates filed Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.32255/2025 before the Apex Court. The SLP was
dismissed. Pursuant to the directions issued by a
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1298/2024 and
connected matters, dated 28.05.2025, the impugned
notification was issued on 19.11.2025. The petitioners
herein have challenged some of the conditions in the
notification dated 19.11.2025.
7. Sri Prithveesh, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners in WP Nos.39094/2025, 2143/2026
and 2328/2026 raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, in the impugned notification dated
19.11.2025, there is a condition, namely Condition
No. 5, which states that there is no minimum
qualifying marks for the written test. Dispensing with
minimum qualifying marks is illegal, as the same is
contrary to Rule 3.3.3 of the Cadre and Recruitment
Rules (for short, 'C & R Rules), which mandates the
prescription of minimum qualifying marks. Therefore,
the notification dated 19.11.2025 has been issued in
contravention of the C & R Rules.
(ii) Secondly, by not fixing minimum qualifying
marks, candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes
(for short, 'SCs') and Scheduled Tribes (for short,
'STs') are adversely affected, since under the C & R
Rules they are entitled to 5% relaxation compared to
general category candidates. By dispensing with
minimum qualifying marks, the respondents are
nullifying the statutory benefit granted to SCs and STs
under the C & R Rules. The same is in violation of
Articles 14, 15(4), and 16(4) of the Constitution of
India.
(iii) Thirdly, the C & R Rules have statutory
force. By issuing a notification or circular, the
respondents cannot override the provisions of the C &
R Rules. In support of this contention, reliance is
placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in MALIK
MAZHAR SULTAN AND ANOTHER V. U.P. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS, reported in
(2006) 9 SCC 507 (paras 21 and 24); ASHISH
KUMAR V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 55 (para 27);
and TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK AND OTHERS V.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS, reported
in (2025) 2 SCC 1 (para 65.2).
(iv) Fourthly, the Government issued a Circular
dated 03.06.2025 stating that, in respect of
Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates and non-Hyderabad-
Karnataka candidates, two separate notifications are
required to be issued for all recruitments with effect
from 03.06.2025. Pursuant to the said Circular, the
respondent - KPCL issued a Circular dated
24.12.2025, clarifying that all recruitments would be
conducted in accordance with the Government Circular
dated 03.06.2025. However, contrary to the said
Government Circular, a single notification has been
issued for both Hyderabad-Karnataka and non-
Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates. The same is
contrary to the Government Circular as well as Article
371J of the Constitution of India.
(v) Fifthly, condition No. 6 in the notification
dated 19.11.2025 providing that for each wrong
answer, one-third of the marks will be deducted is
contrary to the C & R Rules. The Division Bench of this
Court and the Apex Court directed that the
recruitment to be conducted as per the notification
dated 03.08.2017. Neither the notification dated
03.08.2017 nor the C & R Rules provided for negative
marking, i.e., deducting one-third of the marks for
each wrong answer or requiring candidates to shade
the fifth option for unanswered questions, failing
which one-third of the marks would be deducted. This
condition has been introduced for the first time. It was
not part of the earlier notification or the C & R Rules.
The action of the respondents amounts to introducing
a new condition in the midst of the selection process.
It amounts to changing the Rules after the game is
started. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petitions.
8. In W.P.No.953/2026 the petitioner has called
in question the notification dated 19.11.2025 only in
respect of conducting re-examination for Kannada
Language Test.
9. Sri Santhosh S.Nagarale, the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner raised the following
contentions:
(i) Firstly, a Division Bench of this Court directed
the respondents to conduct a re-test for all candidates
who appeared in the written test held on 18.02.2024,
pursuant to the notification dated 03.08.2017. In
W.A.No.1298/2024 and connected matters, the test
conducted for the Kannada Language Test was not an
issue. The Kannada Language Test was conducted on
04.02.2025, and the same was not set aside.
Therefore, conducting a re-test for the Kannada
Language Test is contrary to the directions issued by
the Division Bench.
(ii) Secondly, in W.P.No.202497/2024 filed by
Smt. Geetha Chavan, challenging the Kannada
Language Test conducted by the respondents solely
on the ground that no passing marks had been fixed,
a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated
12.12.2024, directed the respondents to re-conduct
the Kannada Language Test in compliance with Rule
4.5 of the C & R Rules of KPCL, which prescribes a
minimum of 100 marks for the test. Pursuant thereto,
the respondents conducted the Kannada Language
Test on 04.02.2025. Thereafter, the Division Bench
disposed of W.A. No.1298/2024 and connected
matters. Subsequently, the respondents issued
another notification for conducting the Kannada
Language Test. This is contrary to the directions
issued by the Division Bench of this Court. Hence, the
petitioner seeks quashing of the notification insofar as
it relates to conducting a re-examination for the
Kannada Language Test.
10. In W.P.No.573/2026, the petitioners have
called in question the notification dated 19.11.2025 as
the same is in violation of the directions issued by the
Apex Court.
11. Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, submits that all the petitioners had
appeared in the examination conducted on
21.01.2018. The written examination was cancelled on
23.06.2018. Thereafter, a notification was issued, and
the second examination was conducted on
18.02.2024. The petitioners in the present petition did
not appear in the second examination. He contended
that the Apex Court, while dismissing the SLP filed by
certain candidates, directed the respondents to
conduct a re-test as ordered by the High Court. All
candidates who had taken the earlier test were
entitled to appear for the re-test. Therefore, the
respondents ought to have permitted the petitioners,
who had appeared in the first test held in 2018, to
appear for the written test. However, the respondents
denied the petitioners the opportunity to appear in the
written test held in 2025. This is contrary to the
directions issued by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.
21754/2025. Hence, he sought allowing of the writ
petition.
12. Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate
General appearing for Sri Ajay J.Nandalike for KPCL
has raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, insofar as W.P.No.573/2026 is
concerned, the petitioners appeared for the written
test in the year 2018 pursuant to the notification
dated 03.08.2017. The written test was conducted on
21.01.2018 pursuant to the said notification.
Thereafter, the Corporation cancelled the examination.
Subsequently, a fresh notification was issued on
16.07.2018. The petitioners in the present petition did
not participate in the test conducted pursuant to the
notification dated 16.07.2018. As per the directions of
the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1298/2024
and connected matters and the directions of the Apex
Court in SLP (C) No.21754/2025, the re-examination
was to be conducted only for candidates who had
appeared in the written test conducted on 18.02.2024
pursuant to the notification dated 16.07.2018. Since
the petitioners neither applied pursuant to the
notification dated 16.07.2018 nor appeared in the
written test held on 18.02.2024, they have no locus
standi to challenge the impugned notification.
(ii) Secondly, insofar as W.P.No.953/2026 is
concerned, it is contended that the relief sought
pertains only to the re-conduct of the Kannada
Language Test for candidates who had not studied
Kannada at the SSLC level. The petitioners did not
take the Kannada Language Test. Therefore, they
have no locus standi to challenge the Kannada
Language Test conducted for candidates who had not
studied Kannada in SSLC.
(iii) Thirdly, the impugned notification was issued
on 19.11.2025. The written test was thereafter
conducted on 27.12.2025 and 28.12.2025. The
results, including the marks obtained, were
announced, and only thereafter, on 13.01.2026, the
present writ petition was filed. On this ground also,
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
(iv) Fourthly, in respect of the petitioners in
W.P.Nos. 39094/2025, 2143/2026 and 2328/2026,
they appeared in the examination and only thereafter
filed the present writ petitions. The notification dated
19.11.2025 clearly contained Instruction No.5, which
is now under challenge. The petitioners did not
challenge the said instruction immediately after
issuance of the notification. Having participated in the
examination, they are estopped from challenging the
conditions stipulated in the impugned notification.
(v) Fifthly, the marks obtained in the
examination were announced on 08.01.2026. The
petitioners in W.P.Nos.2143/2026 and 2328/2026
were unsuccessful. It is only thereafter that they filed
the present petitions. Once a candidate has
participated in the selection process without protest, it
is not open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge
the selection criteria subsequently. In support of this
contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Apex Court in TAJVIR SINGH SODHI AND OTHERS
VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND
OTHERS, reported in (2023) 17 SCC 147 (para
38).
(vi) Sixthly, the impugned notification does not
prescribe any minimum passing marks for the written
test, and it provides for conducting a single
examination for both Hyderabad-Karnataka and Non-
Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates, as was prescribed
in the notification dated 03.08.2017. Pursuant to the
said notification, the earlier written test was
conducted on 21.01.2018, in which the petitioners
participated. At that time, only certain candidates
challenged the aspect of negative marking. Having
accepted the conditions mentioned in the earlier
notification, it is not now open to the petitioners to
contend that the same are contrary to the C & R
Rules.
(vii) Seventhly, except for the issue relating to
negative marking, all other conditions mentioned in
the notification dated 03.08.2017 were affirmed by
the Division Bench in W.A.No. 1298/2024 and
connected matters, with a direction to conduct the
written test pursuant to the said notification. In
compliance with the directions of the Division Bench
as well as the Apex Court, the impugned notification
dated 19.11.2025 was issued. Therefore, the
petitioners cannot now challenge the instructions
contained therein.
(viii) Eighthly, the respondent-KPCL is a
Company established under the Companies Act. The C
& R Rules were framed by the Company by passing a
resolution. Therefore, the Company is competent to
modify the C & R Rules by passing an appropriate
resolution. Accordingly, the Company passed a
resolution modifying the C & R Rules, pursuant to
which the notification dated 03.08.2017 was issued for
conducting a common written test for Hyderabad-
Karnataka and Non-Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates.
The Circular dated 03.06.2025 clarifies that separate
examinations for Hyderabad-Karnataka and Non-
Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates are to be conducted
only from the date of issuance of the said circular.
Since the present written test was conducted pursuant
to the directions of the Division Bench, in terms of the
notification dated 03.08.2017, a single written test
was conducted. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the
writ petitions.
13. By way of rejoinder, Sri Nagarale, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner in
W.P.No.953/2026, submitted that the petitioner has
the locus standi to challenge the Kannada Language
Test conducted by the respondent-KPCL, since, on
account of the re-examination, the petitioner has been
pushed down in the merit list. In support of his
contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the
Apex Court in PRATAP KISHORE PANDA AND
OTHERS VS. AGNI CHARAN DAS AND OTHERS,
reported in (2015) 17 SCC 789; GAURAV
PRADHAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS, reported in (2018) 11
SCC 352; AND RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS VS.
SHAKTI RAJ AND OTHERS, reported in (1997) 9
SCC 527.
14. Sri Prithveesh, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 39094/2025, 2143/2026
and 2328/2026, submitted that though the C & R
Rules may not have statutory force, the Rules framed
by the Corporation are binding in nature and are
required to be strictly followed. In support of his
contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in B.S. MINHAS VS. INDIAN
STATISTICAL INSTITUTE AND OTHERS, reported
in (1983) 4 SCC 582.
15. He further contended that pursuant to the
examination, a single merit list has been prepared for
candidates who appeared in the examination,
comprising both Hyderabad-Karnataka and Non-
Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates, and a single list has
also been prepared of those eligible to appear for
document verification. This, according to him, clearly
demonstrates that non-fixation of minimum passing
marks adversely affects the rights of SC and ST
candidates. Hence, he sought allowing of the writ
petitions.
16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the writ petition papers.
17. Insofar as W.P.No.573/2026 is concerned,
the petitioners participated in the written test
conducted by the respondent-KPCL on 21.01.2018.
Subsequently, by order dated 23.06.2018, the
respondent-KPCL cancelled the written test held on
21.01.2018. Thereafter, a notification dated
16.07.2018 was issued for conducting a fresh written
test through the KEA. The petitioners, who had
appeared in the written test conducted on 21.01.2018,
did not appear for the re-test conducted by the KEA
on 18.02.2024, pursuant to the notification dated
03.08.2017. Certain candidates who had appeared in
the written test held on 18.02.2024 challenged the
notification before this Court and, having been
unsuccessful, filed W.A.No.1298/2024 and connected
matters. By order dated 28.05.2025, this Court
directed the respondents to permit all candidates who
had appeared for the written test on 18.02.2024,
pursuant to the notification dated 03.08.2017, to take
the re-test. The order passed by the Division Bench of
this Court has also been confirmed by the Apex Court,
which directed that the re-test be conducted in terms
of the High Court's order.
18. Since the present petitioners did not appear
in the examination conducted on 18.02.2024, they
have no locus standi to challenge the impugned
notification.
19. In view of the above, W.P.No.573/2026 is
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
20. Insofar as W.P.No.953/2026 is concerned,
the petitioners have challenged the re-test conducted
for the compulsory Kannada Language Test. As per
the notification dated 03.08.2017, the Kannada
Language Test is prescribed. Candidates who have not
studied Kannada as one of the subjects in SSLC or an
equivalent examination are required to pass the said
test. The relevant portion is extracted below:
"8. Kannada Language Test:
"Those who have not studied Kannada as
one of the subjects in SSLC or equivalent
examination are required to pass a Kannada
Language Test.
Candidates who pass the Kannada
Language test are only eligible to be
considered for selection process.
Date and venue of Kannada language
test will be published separately in KPCL
website."
21. From the above, it is clear that candidates
who have not studied Kannada as one of the subjects
in SSLC are required to take the Kannada Language
Test. The petitioners have not taken the Kannada
Language Test. None of the candidates who appeared
for the Kannada Language Test have challenged the
test conducted by the respondent-KPCL. Therefore,
the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the
Kannada Language Test conducted by the KPCL by
filing the present petition. In respect of the judgments
relied upon by the petitioners are concerned, i.e.,
PRATAP KISHORE PANDA vs. AGNI CHARAN DAS
reported in (2015) 17 SC 789, in that case, the
petitioner had challenged the mode of recruitment of
the respondents who are the reserved class, by virtue
of retrospective regularization several of the
respondents gain seniority over the petitioner. Since
that has direct impact on them, the Apex Court has
held that they have a locus to challenge the validity of
the appointment of the respondents. In the case on
hand, the re-examination conducted for the Kannada
Language Test, which resulted in a large number of
candidates becoming eligible for the written test, did
not have a direct legal impact on the petitioners'
rights. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to
the facts of this case.
22. Further, the notification for conducting the
Kannada Language Test was issued on 19.11.2025,
and the examination was conducted on 28.12.2025.
The writ petition was filed on 13.01.2026, after the
results had been announced. Though the petitioner
was aware of the notification at the time of its
issuance, he has challenged the same at a belated
stage. On this ground also, the writ petition deserves
to be dismissed. Accordingly, W.P. No. 953/2026 is
dismissed.
23. In respect of W.P.Nos.39094/2025,
2143/2026 and 23282026, the first respondent -
KPCL issued a notification dated 03.08.2017, inviting
applications for recruitment to various posts. The
petitioners submitted applications for the posts of
Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer, and Chemical
Supervisor and appeared for the written test
conducted by Respondent - KPCL on 21.01.2018.
24. Respondent - KPCL, by order dated
23.06.2018, cancelled the written examination held on
21.01.2018. Thereafter, a notification dated
16.07.2018 was issued for conducting a fresh written
test through the KEA. The re-test was conducted by
respondent - KEA on 18.02.2024, in which the
petitioners participated. Subsequently, respondent -
KPCL issued a notification dated 08.05.2024 along
with the provisional score list, informing the
candidates that one-third marks would be deducted
for every wrong answer. Some of the candidates filed
a writ petition in W.P.No.14233/2024, challenging the
provisional score list dated 08.05.2024. The said writ
petition was dismissed, holding that the negative
marking was a part of the earlier examination and also
that the re-test held on 18.02.2024 was to be
conducted on similar terms.
25. Being aggrieved by the order passed in
W.P.No.14233/2024, certain candidates filed writ
appeals in W.A.No.1298/2024 and connected matters.
By order dated 28.05.2025, the writ appeals were
allowed, and the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge were set aside, directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3
to conduct a re-examination for all candidates who
appeared in the examination on 18.02.2024 pursuant
to the notification dated 03.08.2017. The operative
portion of the judgment passed by the Division Bench
in W.A.No.1298/2024 is extracted below:
"(i) The writ appeals are allowed.
(ii) The orders of learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.14233 of 2024 dated
12.06.2024 and in Writ Petition 16517 of 2024
dated 10.07.2024 are set aside.
(iii) The Notification bearing
No.ED/KEA/KPCL/2024 the Final Score List
dated 12.06.2024 and the Provisional Score
List dated 08.05.2024 are hereby quashed.
(iv) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby
directed to conduct a re-examination
expeditiously and within reasonable time for all
candidates appeared in the examination on
18.02.2024 pursuant to the Notification dated
03.08.2017.
(v) The re-examination shall be
conducted subject to the condition of negative
marking, and such condition shall be expressly
communicated to all candidates much before
examination."
26. This order has been confirmed by the Apex
Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21754/2025
by passing the following order:
"2. However, we direct that in the re-test
that has to be conducted as directed by the
High court, all the candidates who had taken
the earlier test, since quashed, shall also be
entitled to take the re-test.
3. If any candidate due to passage of
time has become age barred, the same shall
not operate as a bar for consideration of their
candidature for appointment.
4. We record the submission of
Mr.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Additional
Advocate General for the State of Karnataka
that the re-test shall be conducted within four
months from date."
27. It is evident that in the earlier round of
litigation, the challenge was confined only to the
aspect of negative marking. None of the candidates
have challenged any other condition. Hence,
petitioners are estopped from challenging any
condition. In the notification dated 03.08.2017,
insofar as the written test is concerned, no minimum
passing marks were prescribed. The relevant portion
of the notification is extracted below:
"A written test for 100 marks will be
conducted in the relevant technical subjects.
Questions will be of objective type with OMR
sheet.
The question papers will be in English
version in respect of engineering cadres only
whereas for Chemists/Chemical Supervisors
the question paper will be in both Kannada &
English."
28. Even with regard to conducting a written test
for Hyderabad-Karnataka and Non-Hyderabad-
Karnataka candidates is concerned, single written test
was prescribed, none of the candidates had challenged
the notification. The notification dated 03.08.2017
was challenged only insofar as it related to negative
marking. All these petitioners, in the earlier round of
litigation, having accepted the said notification and
participated in the selection process by appearing for
the written test, now estopped from challenging the
said conditions. This view is fortified by the dictum of
the Apex Court in the case of DHANANJAY MALIK
AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND
OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171, wherein the
Apex Court has held as follows:
"7. It is not disputed that the
respondent-writ petitioners herein participated
in the process of selection knowing fully well
that the educational qualification was clearly
indicated in the advertisement itself as BPE or
graduate with diploma in Physical Education.
Having unsuccessfully participated in the
process of selection without any demur they
are estopped from challenging the selection
criterion inter alia that the advertisement and
selection with regard to requisite educational
qualifications were contrary to the Rules.
8. In Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3
SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 : (1995) 29
ATC 603] this Court pointed out that when the
petitioners appeared at the oral interview
conducted by the members concerned of the
Commission who interviewed the petitioners as
well as the contesting respondents concerned,
the petitioners took a chance to get
themselves selected at the said oral interview.
Therefore, only because they did not find
themselves to have emerged successful as a
result of their combined performance both at
written test and oral interview, they have filed
writ petitions. This Court further pointed out
that if a candidate takes a calculated chance
and appears at the interview, then, only
because the result of the interview is not
palatable to him, he cannot turn round and
subsequently contend that the process of
interview was unfair or the Selection
Committee was not properly constituted.
9. In the present case, as already
pointed out, the respondent-writ petitioners
herein participated in the selection process
without any demur; they are estopped from
complaining that the selection process was not
in accordance with the Rules. If they think that
the advertisement and selection process were
not in accordance with the Rules they could
have challenged the advertisement and
selection process without participating in the
selection process. This has not been done."
29. This issue is also re-iterated by the Apex
Court in the case of ASHOK KUMAR AND ANOTHER
vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in
(2017) 4 SCC 357. The relevant portion is extracted
below:
"12. The appellants participated in the fresh
process of selection. If the appellants were
aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh
process, they did not espouse their remedy.
Instead, they participated in the fresh process
of selection and it was only upon being
unsuccessful that they challenged the result in
the writ petition. This was clearly not open to
the appellants. The principle of estoppel would
operate.
13. The law on the subject has been
crystallised in several decisions of this Court.
In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala
Shukla [Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala
Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S)
830] , this Court laid down the principle that
when a candidate appears at an examination
without objection and is subsequently found to
be not successful, a challenge to the process is
precluded. The question of entertaining a
petition challenging an examination would not
arise where a candidate has appeared and
participated. He or she cannot subsequently
turn around and contend that the process was
unfair or that there was a lacuna therein,
merely because the result is not palatable. In
Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [Union of
India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 :
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] , this Court held that
: (SCC p. 107, para 18)
"18. It is also well settled that those
candidates who had taken part in the selection
process knowing fully well the procedure laid
down therein were not entitled to question the
same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil
[Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC
368 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1052] and Rashmi
Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission
[Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service
Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724 : (2007) 2
SCC (L&S) 345] .)"
14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan
Jyoti Borooah [Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of
Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC
(L&S) 627] wherein it was held to be well
settled that the candidates who have taken
part in a selection process knowing fully well
the procedure laid down therein are not
entitled to question it upon being declared to
be unsuccessful.
15. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar
[Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010)
12 SCC 576 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 256] , the
same principle was reiterated in the following
observations : (SCC p. 584, para 16)
"16. We also agree with the High Court
[Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, 2008
SCC OnLine Pat 321 : (2009) 4 SLR 272] that
after having taken part in the process of
selection knowing fully well that more than
19% marks have been earmarked for viva
voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to
challenge the criteria or process of selection.
Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared
in the merit list, he would not have even
dreamed of challenging the selection. The
petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India only after he found that his name does
not figure in the merit list prepared by the
Commission. This conduct of the petitioner
clearly disentitles him from questioning the
selection and the High Court did not commit
any error by refusing to entertain the writ
petition. Reference in this connection may be
made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State
of J&K [Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3
SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712] , Marripati
Nagaraja v. State of A.P. [Marripati Nagaraja
v. State of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008)
1 SCC (L&S) 68] , Dhananjay Malik v. State of
Uttaranchal [Dhananjay Malik v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1
SCC (L&S) 1005 : (2008) 3 PLJR 271] , Amlan
Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam [Amlan Jyoti
Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227
: (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627] and K.A.
Nagamani v. Indian Airlines [K.A. Nagamani v.
Indian Airlines, (2009) 5 SCC 515 : (2009) 2
SCC (L&S) 57] ."
16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service
Commission [Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public
Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150 :
(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 21] , candidates who had
participated in the selection process were
aware that they were required to possess
certain specific qualifications in computer
operations. The appellants had appeared in the
selection process and after participating in the
interview sought to challenge the selection
process as being without jurisdiction. This was
held to be impermissible.
17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi
[Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013)
11 SCC 309 : (2011) 3 SCC (L&S) 129] ,
candidates who were competing for the post of
Physiotherapist in the State of Uttarakhand
participated in a written examination held in
pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held
that if they had cleared the test, the
respondents would not have raised any
objection to the selection process or to the
methodology adopted. Having taken a chance
of selection, it was held that the respondents
were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226
and would be deemed to have waived their
right to challenge the advertisement or the
procedure of selection. This Court held that :
(SCC p. 318, para 18)
"18. It is settled law that a person who
consciously takes part in the process of
selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and
question the method of selection and its
outcome."
18. In Chandigarh Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur
[Chandigarh Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014)
10 SCC 521 : 6 SCEC 745] , it was held that a
candidate who takes a calculated risk or
chance by subjecting himself or herself to the
selection process cannot turn around and
complain that the process of selection was
unfair after knowing of his or her non-
selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh
Kumar Pandey [Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh
Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493 : (2015) 3
SCC (L&S) 274] , this Court held that : (SCC p.
500, para 17)
"17. Moreover, we would concur with the
Division Bench on one more point that the
appellants had participated in the process of
interview and not challenged it till the results
were declared. There was a gap of almost four
months between the interview and declaration
of result. However, the appellants did not
challenge it at that time. This, it appears that
only when the appellants found themselves to
be unsuccessful, they challenged the
interview. This cannot be allowed. The
candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at
the same time. Either the candidates should
not have participated in the interview and
challenged the procedure or they should have
challenged immediately after the interviews
were conducted."
This principle has been reiterated in a recent
judgment in Madras Institute of Development
Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan [Madras
Institute of Development Studies v. K.
Sivasubramaniyan, (2016) 1 SCC 454 : (2016)
1 SCC (L&S) 164 : 7 SCEC 462] .
19. In the present case, regard must be had to
the fact that the appellants were clearly on
notice, when the fresh selection process took
place that written examination would carry
ninety marks and the interview, ten marks.
The appellants participated in the selection
process. Moreover, two other considerations
weigh in balance. The High Court noted in the
impugned judgment [Anurag Verma v. State of
Bihar, 2011 SCC OnLine Pat 1289.] that the
interpretation of Rule 6 was not free from
vagueness. There was, in other words, no
glaring or patent illegality in the process
adopted by the High Court. There was an
element of vagueness about whether Rule 6
which dealt with promotion merely
incorporated the requirement of an
examination provided in Rule 5 for direct
recruitment to Class III posts or whether the
marks and qualifying marks were also
incorporated. Moreover, no prejudice was
established to have been caused to the
appellants by the 90 : 10 allocation.
20. The decision in Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj
[Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj, (1997) 9 SCC 527 :
1997 SCC (L&S) 1029] (which was relied upon
by the appellants) involved a case where the
Government was found to have committed
glaring illegalities in the procedure. Hence, it
was held that the principle of estoppel by
conduct or acquiescence had no application.
The decision is distinguishable.
21. In this view of the matter, the Division
Bench cannot held to be in error in coming to
the conclusion that it was not open to the
appellants after participating in the selection
process to question the result, once they were
declared to be unsuccessful. During the course
of the hearing, this Court is informed that four
out of six candidates, who were ultimately
selected, figured both in the first process of
selection as well as in the subsequent
selection. One candidate is stated to have
retired."
30. In the case on hand, since the conditions in
the earlier notification dated 03.08.2017 were not
challenged, and in view of the specific directions
issued by the Division Bench of this Court as well as
the Supreme Court to conduct the re-test in terms of
the notification dated 03.08.2017, the impugned
notification has been issued accordingly. The
petitioners cannot now contend that the same is
contrary to the C & R Rules. Therefore, there is no
illegality or error in the impugned notification dated
19.11.2025.
31. In the light of the discussions made above, I
am of the view that these writ petitions are devoid of
merit and are accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main matters, all
pending applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Cm/-
