The Supreme Court has struck down Karnataka’s 2022 law validating the selection and appointment of the 2011 batch of Gazetted Probationers, holding that the legislature could not undo the cancellation of a recruitment already upheld by constitutional courts. Appointments resting on the law must end, with a fresh recruitment and a limited, one-time age relaxation directed instead.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on October 29 declared unconstitutional the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022, rejecting an attempt to restore a recruitment process whose cancellation had survived successive judicial challenges [Srinivasa T. & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. Etc. Etc.].
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned High Court judgments. Justice Chandran, writing for the Bench, distinguished a permissible change to the legal basis of a judgment from legislation that directly nullifies the judgment itself.
A recruitment dispute spanning nearly fifteen years
The proceedings arose from a November 3, 2011 notification for 362 Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts. The judgment records that a CID inquiry revealed manipulation, corruption and nepotism in the Karnataka Public Service Commission’s selection process, leading the State to cancel the recruitment.
Although the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal initially quashed the cancellation, the High Court upheld it in public interest proceedings. The Supreme Court declined to disturb that result in the earlier round. An effort to restart the process from the written-examination results also failed after the High Court considered irregularities in the evaluation of answer scripts.
The State subsequently enacted the 2022 validation law. According to paragraph 7 of the judgment, 191 candidates received appointments under it; 14 of those appointees were among the candidates found tainted. The present appeals challenged High Court orders dismissing a challenge to the legislation and declining interference with the Tribunal’s refusal of interim relief.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Stays Karnataka HC’s De Novo SIT Probe Into Alleged KPSC Recruitment Scam
What the parties argued
For the appellants, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan submitted that the statute effectively reversed the Supreme Court’s earlier decision. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Karnataka, stated that the legislation could not be supported. Counsel for the selected candidates sought to defend their appointments on equitable grounds, including the absence of candidates from the FIR and chargesheet.
The Court rejected the contention that the criminal proceedings’ failure to reach trial justified continued appointments. Its decision concerned the validity of the recruitment and the law sustaining the appointments; it did not convict individual candidates of criminal offences.
Changing the law does not permit reversal of a final judgment
In paragraphs 13–16, the Bench explained that a legislature may, within constitutional limits, remove the legal defect underlying a judicial decision and retrospectively validate action. It cannot simply overturn a final adjudication of the parties’ rights. Here, the recruitment had been cancelled for corruption and nepotism affecting the selection as a whole, and that cancellation had already been upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court.
The Bench relied on Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala, (2019) 13 SCC 185, and the authorities discussed in it, including In re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala. The validation law did not provide a lawful basis to reverse the judicially upheld cancellation.
The Court also rejected a fresh attempt to separate tainted and untainted candidates to preserve appointments under the impugned law. With the entire selection cancelled and the appointments dependent on an unconstitutional enactment, that distinction could not sustain their continuation.
Fresh recruitment, with restricted relief for affected candidates
Paragraph 19 directs the State to notify recruitment for the vacancies now remaining in Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ services under the rules presently in force. Given the passage of nearly fifteen years, the Court declined to resume the old selection process.
A one-time age relaxation must be granted to the appointed candidates who were not found tainted, the six appellants, and the petitioners in the pending proceedings before the Tribunal. They may compete alongside other eligible candidates; the judgment does not assure them appointments.
If selected, their seniority will begin only with the fresh appointment. They will receive neither back wages nor a notional appointment from an earlier date. For those currently serving who succeed in the fresh recruitment and are appointed again, their earlier service will count towards pension and retirement benefits.
Why it matters
The ruling reinforces the constitutional boundary between legislative validation and judicial review. Relief for people affected by a cancelled recruitment cannot be delivered through a statute that merely reverses a final court ruling. The Court addressed their hardship through an opportunity to compete afresh, while preserving the requirement of a lawful selection.
Case Title: Srinivasa T. & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. Etc. Etc.
Case: Civil appeals arising from SLP (C) Nos. 21195–21196 of 2023
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: October 29, 2026 | Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1173
Status: Final judgment; appeals allowed, validation law and impugned High Court judgments set aside; fresh recruitment directed with the limited relief specified in paragraph 19.