Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Thus, keeping in view the facts of this case and the time lapse, we are of the clear opinion that, it is not a fit case to direct re- evaluation of answer scripts. On 13.08.2018: New SLP was filed by Mythri VS the State of Karnataka bearing the dairy no: 30195/2018 before Supreme Court challenging the Hon‟ble division bench high court order dated 13.07.2018 and Supreme Court ordered as follows:- we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. concequently the SLP is dismissed.” Whereas the State Government filed a new SLP (Dairy No-21729/2019) before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court challenging the high court order dated 13.07.2018, The Hon‟ble Supreme Court. In this case has ordered as follows:- “We are not inclined to interfere with impugned order(s) passed by the High Court the SLP are accordingly, dismissed.” Pending interlocutory applications forms are disposed”. Having examined the above judgments it is apparent that the Hon‟ble High Court has relied in arriving at such decision based on the interim report of the CID. Unless the tainted candidates are segregated and a detail investigation are held and proved guilty in the court of law after due trail it may not be proper to hold the examination as vitiated. Whereas in respect of untainted candidates their sincere efforts has to be respected and their legitimate expectation for having appointed shall be honoured. It was also bound duty on the State Legislature under article 323(2) of the Constitution to annul the withdrawal of requisition made to KPSC before issue of Government order dated 15.10.2013 on the basis of an interim investigation report of the CID. It is apparent from para 45 of the High Court judgment in Renukambe Vs. State of Karnataka case dated 9th March 2018 which reads as follows; “45. In the light of facts recorded by the CID in it‟s investigation report, we are of the view that there is no error in exercise of their powers under the transaction of business by the State Government in withdrawing the requisition given to the State Public Service Commission.” Here, in this case the very basis of the judgments in the vitiating the examination process based on the CID interim report itself is misleading. Hence, the Government Orders dated 15.10.2013 and 14.08.2014 respectively suffer from severe procedural infirmity and have no sanctity in the eyes of law especially in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Babu Varghese v. Kerala State Bar Council reported in 1999(3) SCC 422, which reads as follows:- “It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor VS Taylor (1875) 1Ch.D 426 which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad VS King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 who stated as under: “Where a power is given to do certain thing in a certain way, the thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.” Now therefore, it is considered necessary to bring a legislation to annul the action taken by the previous Government without proper approval of the State Legislature and thereby as a resultant the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court in this regard. Whereas the charges made on the candidates in the trail court has reached the logical end and no member of KPSC or candidate has been proved guilty of any offence or convicted in any court of trail. It is also pertinent to State that the decision of the High Court leads to violation of the Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Whereas in view of all above matters it is considered necessary to validate the recruitment orders issued by the Government to 2011 Gazetted probationers and to legalise the selection list. Hence, the Bill. [L.A. Bill No. 04 of 2022, File No. SAMVYASHAE 02 SHASANA 2022] [Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.] [Published in Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary No. 104 in part-IVA dated: 14.03.2022] KARNATAKA ACT NO. 14 OF 2022 (First Published in the Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary on the 14th day of March, 2022) THE KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES (VALIDATION OF SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF 2011 BATCH GAZETTED PROBATIONERS) ACT, 2022 (Received the assent of Governor on the 12th day of March, 2022) Whereas, in Notification dated 03.11.2011, applications were invited by the Karnataka Public Service Commission from eligible candidates for filling up of 362 Group-A and Group-B posts. The Preliminary Examination was conducted on 22.04.2012. The main examination was held from 15.12.2012 to 06.01.2013. Result of the examination was published on 21.03.2013. Whereas, the Karnataka Public Service Commission had conducted the interviews of qualified candidates from 07-05-2013 to 27-05-2013. When the Viva-voce had been conducted, a candidate by name Dr.Mythri.H.P.S. made a complaint before the then, Advocate General on 28-05-2013 alleging that in this process, she (Dr.Mythri.H.P.S) was eliminated and the candidate below her was selected to the post of the Assistant Commissioner. She has also alleged that demands were made by Smt. Dr.Mangala Sridhar, Member, KPSC in order to ensure her selection. Whereas, pursuant thereto, a FIR was registered in Crime no 28/2013 dated 25-06-2013 before the Vidhana Soudha police station, Bengaluru alleging for the offences punishable under Section 341,120-B,418,423, 465 of Indian Penal code and under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,