KPSC 2011 Gazetted Probationers Case: Supreme Court Strikes Down Karnataka Validation Act, 2022

What happened

On 29 October 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran declared the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 unconstitutional in *Srinivasa T & Ors v State of Karnataka & Ors* (as reported by LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LawTrend and ETV Bharat). The Act had revived the 2011 selection of gazetted probationers by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), even though that selection had been cancelled for corruption and the cancellation had been upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Court held that the legislature may change the basis of a court decision, but it cannot directly annul a final judgment through a later law. Since appointments made under the Act rested only on that law, they also fall. The Court also set aside the two High Court orders under appeal and ordered fresh recruitment.

Background

• The 2011 recruitment. A notification dated 3 November 2011 invited applications for 362 Group A and B posts under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997. LawTrend and ETV Bharat report 1,38,307 applicants and 1,090 candidates called for interview.
• Probe and cancellation. In 2013, after a complaint, the State withheld the final select list and referred the matter to the State CID. As reported, the inquiry found manipulation, corruption and nepotism by KPSC officials. Evidence noted by the courts included identical interview marks and the replacement of a digital video recorder at the KPSC building (LiveLaw, Bar and Bench). The recruitment was withdrawn by government orders of 15 October 2013 and 14 August 2014 (recorded in the 2022 Act).
• Earlier court rounds. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) quashed the cancellation, but the High Court upheld it, and the Supreme Court declined to interfere. A later attempt to resume the process from the written examination stage also failed.
• The 2022 Act. Karnataka Act 14 of 2022 (assent 12 March 2022) declared the 2011 selection valid "notwithstanding" any judgment, decree or order of any court, cancelled the 2013 and 2014 withdrawal orders, directed appointments from the KPSC list and barred proceedings to review them (India Code text).
• Challenges. The High Court dismissed a PIL against the Act in 2022; a bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar said the Act was not invalid merely because the selection had been quashed earlier (LiveLaw, May 2022). The KAT then refused interim relief to unsuccessful candidates, and the High Court upheld that refusal. Those orders reached the Supreme Court.

Key details

Directions (agreed in the LiveLaw, LawTrend and ETV Bharat reports):

1. The State must notify recruitment for vacant Group A and B posts under the existing recruitment rules.
2. One-time age relaxation for appointed candidates not found tainted, the six appellants, and petitioners before the KAT.
3. Those selected in the fresh process get seniority only from the new appointment date, with no back wages or notional appointment.
4. Serving employees who are selected again will have their earlier service counted for pension and retirement benefits.

On the High Court. Bar and Bench reports the Court expressed "a little bit of surprise and a lot more alarm" at how the PIL and writ petition were handled, calling the treatment cursory. It also said a PIL petitioner cannot withdraw as of right without the court's permission.

Precedents. LawTrend reports reliance on *Medical Council of India v State of Kerala*, *Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara*, *In re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal* and *S.T. Sadiq v State of Kerala*.

Why it matters

• Limits of validating laws. Legislatures can cure a defect by changing the law, for example by amending a rule the court relied on. They cannot simply declare that a judgment will not apply. The 2022 Act did the second.
• Separation of powers. Deciding disputes and binding parties by final judgments is a judicial function. A law that overturns a specific final verdict takes over that function.
• Integrity of public recruitment. Article 16 promises equal opportunity in public employment, and Articles 315 to 323 (Part XIV) deal with Public Service Commissions to ensure merit-based selection. Reviving a selection found tainted undercuts both.
• Accountability of High Courts. The judgment signals that constitutional challenges must be examined on merits, not disposed of cursorily.

Issues and criticism

• Hardship to officers. Appointees under the Act, including those never found tainted, lose their posts. The Court addressed this partly through age relaxation and pension protection, not by saving appointments.
• Delay. About 15 years have passed since the notification; many honest aspirants lost chances in the meantime.
• State's shifting stand. The State that enacted the law conceded before the Court that it could not be defended (Bar and Bench, LawTrend).
• Lack of separation. Counsel for the selected candidates defended the Act on equity, noting no candidate was named in the FIR or chargesheet (LawTrend); the Court refused to separate tainted from untainted appointees because the appointments had no legal basis other than the Act.

Way forward

• Time-bound fresh recruitment by the State under the existing rules.
• Stronger safeguards in PSC interviews, such as recorded proceedings and protection of evidence.
• Legislatures should test validating Bills against the rule that the basis of a judgment may be removed, but the judgment itself cannot be overruled.

Practise more polity questions with the weekly current affairs quiz and the UPSC Prelims page.

Prelims pointers

• Case: *Srinivasa T & Ors v State of Karnataka & Ors*, decided 29 October 2026.
• Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran.
• Act struck down: Karnataka Act 14 of 2022, validating the 2011 batch gazetted probationers selection.
• 2011 notification: 362 Group A and B posts through KPSC.
• Appointed under the Act: 191, of whom 14 were found tainted.
• Principle: legislature may remove the basis of a judgment but cannot directly annul a final judgment.
• Public Service Commissions: Articles 315 to 323 of the Constitution (Part XIV).

One-liners for SSC, Banking and Railways

• Karnataka's 2022 validation law for the 2011 KPSC selection was struck down by the Supreme Court on 29 October 2026.
• The 2011 notification was for 362 gazetted probationer posts.
• Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran.
• Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment.
• Article 315 provides for Public Service Commissions for the Union and the States.

Mains practice question

*"The power to enact validating laws does not include the power to overrule judgments." Discuss with reference to the Supreme Court's recent ruling on Karnataka's 2011 gazetted probationers selection. (250 words)*

Points to cover:

• Difference between removing the basis of a judgment and directly annulling it.
• Facts: tainted 2011 KPSC selection, cancellation upheld by courts, 2022 Act reviving it.
• Separation of powers, Article 16 and the role of Public Service Commissions.
• Balance between relief for untainted candidates and the integrity of recruitment.