Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Power to remove difficulties STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS Act 14 OF 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 Karnataka Public Service Commission had conducted the interviews of qualified candidates from 07.05.02013 to 27.05.2013. When the Viva-Voce had been conducted, a candidate by name Dr. Mythri H.P.S. had made a complaint to the then Advocate General on 28.05.2013, in this process, it was alleged that she [Dr. Mythri H.P.S] was eliminated and the candidate below her, was selected to the post of the Assistant Commissioner. She also alleged that demands were made by Dr. Mangala Sridhar, Member, KPSC to pay bribe in order to ensure her selection. Whereas pursuant thereto, a FIR was registered in the Vidhana Soudha Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 120-B, 418, 4230, 465 of IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Government, by order dated 27.06.2013, directed the investigation to be conducted by the C.I.D. In furtherance, the C.I.D. after investigation had submitted a preliminary/interim report on 10.09.2013 Whereas based on the interim report, the Government issued Government Order dated 15.10.2013/14.08.2014 cancelling the results of the main competitive examination as also the Viva-Voce and directing the Karnataka Public Service Commission to revaluate the answer script of the main written examination and to conduct Viva-Voce, strictly in accordance with the recommendations of HOTA Committee. Whereas in the meantime some of the candidates had challenged the action of the Government, by order dated 15.10.2013, by filing Applications before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Slowly, all the affected candidates preferred applications before the Tribunal and the Tribunal granted an „interim order‟ directing the State Government not to notify for the „362 posts‟ which was a subject matter of the 2011 Selection List, till the disposal of the applications. Whereas during the pendency of the proceedings before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, CID had submitted its final report and in its „final report‟ had concluded that the officials, who are the then Member of the Karnataka Public Service Commission shown as Accused Nos. 9 to 16 had entered into criminal conspiracy and had misused the official machinery to do favours for candidates seeking to be appointed as Group-A and B employees under the 2011 Notification. The said 8 Accused persons have obtained illegal gratifications from various candidates and had misused their office to grant appointments for such illegal gratification and thereby had committed the offences under Sections 120-B, 166, 167 of IPC R/w Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 37 of IPC. Whereas it is pertinent to note here that; although the names of certain candidates find a place in the „charge sheet‟ for having maintained telephonic contact with some of the Accused, none of them have, themselves been names as Accused either in the charge sheet or in the FIR. Whereas the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, in the meantime, had proceeded to hear the matter on merit. After hearing the matter, the Tribunal by its order dated 19.10.2016, allowed the Applications and quashed the Government Order dated 14.08.2014. The Tribunal thereafter directed the State of Karnataka to issue orders of appointment to the Applicants in terms of the provisions of Rule 11(3) of „1997‟ Rules, within a period of two months from the date receipt of the copy of the order. Whereas a perusal of the said charge sheet would show that, none of the candidates who are either selected or had participated in the selection process have been named as Accused persons. The gist of the charge sheet filed by the C.I.D discloses that there is a commission of offence of criminal conspiracy by the Chairman, Members and staff and some middlemen to favour certain candidates who are otherwise ineligible or less meritorious by accepting illegal gratifications. Who these candidates are, is not pointedly forthcoming in the report of the C.I.D. Whereas where these candidates have paid illegal gratification to the Members or the middlemen is also not very forthcoming in the charge sheet. In any view of the matter, this is an aspect to be established before the Court of law after a full fledged trial. In pursuance to this order dated 17.03.2017 the State Government has directed Heads of Departments to issue appointed after verification procedure. Whereas Director, Municipal Administration issued appointment order to 18 candidates. On 27.03.2017on the 03.04.2017 the RDPR Department has issued appointment orders to 60 candidates. Whereas this apart, prima-facie the CID Report does not appear to point fingers at any of the other candidates who have participated in the Selection process and form part of the select list. Therefore, the present issue throws up a very pertinent question as to what should be the fate of those candidates against whom there is no allegation or against whom nobody can point a finger of doubt or suspicion. As is being pointed out, can these candidates who have apparently undergone certain struggle/put in efforts to participate and get through the selection process, be punished for no fault of theirs (without establishing their involvement), by holding that the entire list is vitiated due to the conduct of a few persons, if at all, any aspersions can be cast against their conduct. Whereas mere allegations of malpractice and commission of offences, would not be sufficient or justify the end result of cancelling the appointments in respect of all the candidates. It is only after the due process of law; is undertaken and when an enquiry or investigation reaches its logical conclusion, which is when it is so established and approval made by a Court of the land, can it be said that the time is right to penalize the delinquent or the offender. Whereas the State has initiated (on finding some prima facie materials) and awaited these proceedings to reach their logical and final conclusion; failing which, it would defeat the very ends of justice to penalize the candidates who find a place in select list. No member of KPSC or no Candidates has been proved guilty of allegation or convicted in any court of trial. In writ Petition 13617-13627/2017 Renukambike R and Others Vs the State of Karnataka challenging the order of KAT Hon;ble Division Bench of High Court on 09.03.2018 allowed the writ petition and upheld the G.O. Dated 04.08.2014. date 09.03.2018 as held as follows;- “52. In the light of above discussion, we are of the considered view that, the Administrative Tribunal erred in substituting its opinion and therefore, the impugned judgment quashing State Government‟s decision to withdraw the is wholly unsustainable. Consequently, direction to the State Government to issue appointment orders to the selected candidates is also rendered unsustainable in law.” X X X