SC Strikes Down Karnataka Act Validating 2011 KPSC Selection

Legislature Cannot Undo Court-Upheld Cancellation of Tainted Recruitment: Supreme Court Strikes Down Karnataka's Validation Act

Published: 30 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court struck down Karnataka's 2022 Act validating the 2011 selection of 362 Group A and B gazetted probationers, a recruitment the State had cancelled for corruption and nepotism, with the cancellation upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. A legislature cannot nullify such judgments. Appointments under the Act end; the State must hold a fresh recruitment with one-time age relaxation, seniority from fresh appointment and earlier service counted for pension (paras 11, 13, 17, 19).

Key holdings

Karnataka's 2022 Act validating the 2011 gazetted probationers' selection was declared unconstitutional, with the High Court orders upholding it (para 17).

Where corruption and nepotism vitiated the whole selection, selected candidates have no equity and untainted ones cannot now be segregated (paras 11, 18).

A PIL petitioner cannot withdraw without the Court's leave; the appellants were transposed as petitioners (para 17).

Vacant Group A and B posts must be notified under current rules, with one-time age relaxation for untainted appointees, the six appellants and KAT petitioners (para 19).

Seniority runs from the fresh appointment, without back wages; serving officers' earlier service counts for pension (para 19).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

A 2011 notification under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers Rules, 1997 drew 1,38,307 applicants for 362 posts (para 3). A CID inquiry revealed rampant corruption and nepotism involving Karnataka Public Service Commission officials, and the whole recruitment was cancelled; the High Court affirmed the cancellation and this Court declined to interfere in Civil Appeal Nos. 3543-3555 of 2018 (paras 3-4). A plea to resume from the written-examination results failed (para 5). The Act of 2022 validated the selection: of 362 selected, 46 were found tainted, and 191, including 14 tainted, were appointed (paras 6-7). The High Court dismissed a writ petition against the Act on 21.04.2022 and upheld the KAT's refusal of interim relief (para 6).

Court's Findings

The State conceded that the Act could not be supported (para 10). Nothing remained to sustain the 2011 recruitment, which was set aside not for a mere defect but because rampant corruption and blatant nepotism vitiated the entire selection; there could be no equity for candidates appointed under a stillborn legislation (para 11). Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala, on a State regularising illegal admissions for hardship, was identical (para 12). The Act rested on the candidates not being accused, but the cancellation had been upheld by the High Court and this Court, and the legislature cannot annul it and nullify those judgments (para 13). Applying Janapada Sabha, Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and S.T. Sadiq, a legislature may alter the basis of a decision but cannot set aside a decision between parties or annul a final judgment (paras 14-16). The Act was unconstitutional; a PIL petitioner cannot withdraw without the Court's leave, and the High Court had dealt with both matters cursorily (para 17). That no trial followed the prosecution, or that the State changed its stance, could not justify segregating untainted candidates once the whole selection stood cancelled (para 18).

Legal Principle

A legislature may change the law retrospectively and remove the basis of a court's decision, but it cannot set aside a final judgment between parties. An Act validating a selection whose cancellation for corruption and nepotism the constitutional courts upheld is unconstitutional, and appointments made under it end (paras 13-17, 19).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The ruling goes beyond restoring the 2011 cancellation: appointments made under the Act come to an end, and those appointees can return only through the fresh recruitment the State must notify under the present rules (para 19). Untainted appointees, the six appellants and the KAT petitioners get a one-time age relaxation; anyone selected takes seniority only from the new appointment, without back wages, though serving officers keep their earlier service for pension (para 19). The judgment sets no date for the notification. For States, a validating law cannot reopen a selection whose cancellation the courts have finally upheld (paras 13-17). Compare Jaya Thakur on validating legislation.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala (2019) 13 SCC 185
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 12, 14
Treated as an identical situation: after admissions to two Kerala medical colleges for 2016-17 were found illegal and that finding was upheld by the High Court and this Court, the State promulgated an Ordinance regularising the 180 students on the ground of their hardship, as Karnataka sought to relieve the selected candidates here; the Court also drew on the decisions relied on in it.
Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D 426
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
Its principle that a thing prescribed to be done in a particular manner must be done in that manner or not at all was relied on in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 2022 to set aside the cancellation; the Court noted that nothing was stated about any irregular manner of cancellation, which had in any event been upheld by the High Court and this Court.
Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara Etc. v. The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. and Another (1970) 1 SCC 509
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 14
Referred to through Medical Council of India: the legislature cannot render a judgment ineffective, though within limits it may amend an enactment retrospectively and validate actions by removing the defect on which a court invalidated it.

View all precedents (6)

In re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal 1993 Supp (1) SCC 96
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 15
If judicial review could be set at naught by the State overriding a decision given against it, that would sound the death knell of the rule of law; the law may be changed in general by changing its basis, but an individual decision between parties cannot be set aside, which is what the Act of 2022 attempted.
S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 400
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 16
A legislature may retrospectively alter the basis of an earlier decision but cannot directly annul a final judgment by a subsequent law; such a law would be unconstitutional.
Avinash C. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. Civil Appeal Nos.3543-3555 of 2018
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4
The earlier round in this Court: it refused to interfere with the annulment of the 2011 selection affirmed by the High Court, rejected segregation of tainted and untainted candidates, and left the plea that the written examination was untainted to the High Court.