- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO.2093 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.2899 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) WRIT PETITION NO.2901 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) WRIT PETITION NO.8884 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) IN WP NO.2093/2024 BETWEEN: KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 012. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI RANGANATH K. R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (COLLEGIATE) SACHIVALAYA, M. S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 2. THE COMMISSIONER COLLEGIATE EDUCATION PALACE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. SMT. MITHA M. W/O. SRI DIVAKARA M. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT ARUNDHATHI NILAYA FIRST FLOOR, MOTHER TERESA ROAD NEAR NETHAJI PUBLIC SCHOOL VIDHAYANAGAR HASSAN - 573 201 HASSAN DISTRICT. 4. SMT. SHWETA GALI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS REG NO. AP546071A1 C/O. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY 18TH CROSS SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 012. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, A.G.A., FOR R-1 & 2, SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR C/R-3, & SRI DIVYATHEJ A.B., ADVOCATE, FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/11/2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.1161/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE, BENGALURU. IN WP NO.2899/2024 BETWEEN: KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 18TH CROSS SAMPIGE ROAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 012. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI RANGANATH K. R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (COLLEGIATE) SACHIVALAYA M. S. BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER COLLEGIATE EDUCATION PALACE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. SRI ZUBERAHMED PUNEKAR S/O. SRI RAFIQAHMED PUNEKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.117, FIRST FLOOR HEMANTHANAGARA, KESHAVAPURA HUBBALLI - 580 023 DHARWAD DISTRICT. 4. SRI YOGESH B. N. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS REG NO. AP505214A1 WORKING AS SENIOR SELECTION ENGINEER (INDIAN RAILWAYS), BOGIE REPAIR SHOP GADAG ROAD HUBBALLI - 580 020. 5. SRI MAHANTESH SUBHASH HINGLAJE AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS WORKING AS LECTURER DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE NO.58, PALACE ROAD ABSHOT LAYOUT, VASANTH NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 052. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, A.G.A., FOR R-1 & 2, SRI DIVYATHEJ A.B., ADVOCATE, FOR R-4, SRI PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE, FOR R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03/11/2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.1715/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. IN WP NO.2901/2024 BETWEEN: SRI YOGESH B. N. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS REG. NO. AP505214A1 WORKING AS SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER (INDIAN RAILWAYS) BOGIE REPAIR SHOP, GADAG ROAD HUBBALI - 580 020. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI DIVYATHEJ A. B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ZUBERAHMED PUNEKAR S/O. RAFIQAHMED PUNEKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.117 FIRST FLOOR, HEMANTHANAGARA KESHAVAPURA, HUBBALI-580 023 DHARWAD DISTRICT. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER COLLEGIATE EDUCATION PALACE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE COMMISSIONER COLLEGIATE EDUCATION PALACE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY/ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 012. 6. SRI MAHANTHESH SUBASH HINGLAJE AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS WORKING AS LECTURER DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE NO. 58, PALACE ROAD ABSHOT LAYOUT, VASANT NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 052. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1, SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, A.G.A., FOR R-2 TO 4, SMT. PRAMODHINI RANGANATH K.R., ADVOCATE, FOR R-5 SRI PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE, FOR R-6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03/11/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1715/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 IN WP NO.8884/2024 BETWEEN: KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 18TH CROSS SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESWARAM BENGALURU - 560 012. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI RANGANATH K. R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (COLLEGIATE) SACHIVALAYA, M. S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER COLLEGIATE EDUCATION PALACE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. SMT. ANITHA K. T. D/O. SRI B. CHIMMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.178 HAMPI VIRUPAKSHA NILAYA NEAR BSNL OFFICE 3RD CROSS, JYOTHINAGAR POST HOUSING BOARD CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 102. 4. SMT. SHWETA GALI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS REG NO.AP546071A1 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 C/O. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESWARAM BENGALURU - 560 012. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, A.G.A., FOR R-1 AND 2, SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE, FOR C/R-3, & SRI DIVYATHEJ A.B., ADVOCATE, FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2023 PASSED IN A.NO.3051/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU. THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Writ petitions No.2899/2024, 2093/2024 and 8884/2024 are filed by the petitioner Karnataka Examination Authority (for short 'KEA') challenging the orders dated 03.11.2023, 06.11.2023 and 06.12.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru Bench (herein after referred to as 'the Tribunal', for brevity) in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 Application Nos.1715/2023, 1161/2023 and 3051/2023 respectively. 2. Whereas WP No.2901/2024 is filed by the petitioner-Sri Yogesh B.N., challenging the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Tribunal at Bengaluru in Application No.1715/2023. W.P.NO.2093/2024, W.P.NO.2899/2024 AND W.P.NO.8884/2024 3. The brief facts of the cases are that, the KEA was entrusted by the State Government (Respondent No.1), as Selection Authority for recruitment of 1242 posts of Assistant Professors in the Department of Collegiate Education, Bengaluru. Hence, respondent No.1 issued Notification dated 08-07-2020 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors in Electronics as per Karnataka Education Department Services (Collegiate Education Department) (Recruitment of Assistant Professors) (Special) Rules, 2020, wherein, the qualification, age for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor for collegiate education - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 were prescribed. Thus, the KEA pursuant to the Notification issued by the State Government, issued a Notification dated 30-09-2021, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Professors in 26 subjects. The last date for filing the applications was on 06-11-2021 and later, it was extended till 30-11-2021. In terms of the Rules, 2020, a Notification was issued to fill up 1242 posts of Assistant Professors and as per the Notification dated 08-07-2020, the posts were to be filled under the quota of IIA/W, SC/W, GM/R and GM/KMS. On 18-11-2021, by a Notification, declared the equivalence of Electronics subject for the post of Assistant Professor in terms of Rule 2(1)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 as per the recommendations of Expert Committee constituted. 4. The candidate-Smt. Mitha M., (respondent No.3 in WP No.2093/2024) and Smt. Shewtha Gali (respondent No.4 in W.P.No.2093/2024 and W.P.No.8884/2024) submitted applications seeking appointment to the post of Assistant - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 Professor in Electronics through online under the quota Schedule Caste Women. They were issued with admission ticket to appear for the competitive examination held on 12-03-2022. A provisional document verification list was issued and the name of Smt. Mitha M. was shown at Sl.No.30 with total marks as 86.05. In the said list, the name of Smt. Shwetha Gali (respondent No.4 in WP No.2093/2024 and WP No.8884/2024) at Sl.No.5 was shown with total marks of 114. On 05-11-2022, she was called for verification of records, scheduled to be held on 17-11-2022. Smt. Mitha M., also participated for document verification on 17-11-2022. On the said date, respondent No.4 Smt. Shwetha Gali's candidature was rejected on the ground that the equivalency qualification held by her has not been declared as equivalent under Rule 2(1G) Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. 5. On 06-01-2023, subsequent to document verification of Smt. Mitha M., the Government issued a clarification to the KEA, to include the candidature who have - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 acquired M.Tech in Signal Process, M.E. Degree in System Science and Automation and M.Tech in VLSI Design and embedded systems, as the same has been declared as equivalent by the Experts Committee constituted in the proceedings of the meeting held on 16-12-2022. Accordingly, the KEA issued a Notification on 09-01-2023 calling those persons for verification of records, who became eligible pursuant to the proceedings of the meeting held on 16-12-2022 and the 4th respondent-Shwetha Gali, who had acquired M.Tech in VSLI Design and embedded systems, was also called for document verification. On 03-02-2023, Smt. Mitha M., submitted her objections to Notification issued on 09-01-2023 as per the decision of Expert Committee dated 16-12-2022. 6. Further, a provisional selection list was issued on 17-02-2023, without showing the name of Smt. Mitha M., and the name of 4th respondent-Shwetha Gali was included at Sl.No.3 under SC/W. Therefore, Smt. Mitha M., submitted her objection contending that the name of respondent - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 No.4-Shweta Gali could not have been included in the provisional selection list, as she is not qualified and eligible to be appointed to the post as on the date of Notification and she being the next eligible candidate under SC/W, her claim be considered, but, ignoring the objections of Smt. Mitha M. (respondent No.3), the KEA has issued the final selection list of Assistant Professors, Electronics Department on 03-03-2023, showing the name of Shwetha Gali against the quota of SC/W. Therefore, Smt. Mitha M., challenged the final selection list issued by the KEA, on the ground that, it is in violation of law and also contrary to the KCS (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 and so also to the Recruitment Notification dated 18-11-2021 and thus, in violation of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereby, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, hence, preferred application No.1161 of 2023, before the Tribunal. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 7. A similar application was also filed by the applicant by name Smt. Anitha K.T. (respondent No.3 in WP No.8884/2024) before Tribunal in application No.3051/2023. 8. The Tribunal after perusal of the material available before it, allowed the application of Smt. Mitha M., in application No.1161/2023 and passed the order as under: ORDER i) The application is hereby allowed. The impugned selection list in No.ED/KEA/ADMN/CR-19/2021-22 dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure-A18) is hereby set aside in so far as it relates to inclusion of the name of the fourth respondent is concerned and her appointment and posting if any are hereby seized forthwith. If appointed, she shall be discharged forthwith. ii) The respondents no.1 to 3 are hereby directed to appoint the applicant for the post of Assistant Professor in Electronics in the First Grade Government College under quota of SC/W and include her name in the final selection list and issue appointment order within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if the applicant is otherwise eligible. iii) The seniority of the applicant shall be maintained notionally as per the merit based - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 select list on the basis of which she is appointed to service. However the applicant is entitled for salary and monetary benefits from the date of reporting for duty only if the appointment is issued within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on the expiry of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, if the appointment is issued subsequently to the prescribed period above. iv) The applicant shall be entitled for the costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable to the applicant by the third respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The Tribunal has passed order in Application No.3051/2023 and the operative portion of the impugned order reads as under: ORDER i) The application is hereby allowed. The impugned selection list in No.ED/KEA/ADMN/CR-19/2021-22 dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure-A11) is hereby set aside in so far as it relates to inclusion of the name of the fourth respondent is concerned and her appointment and posting if any are seized forthwith. If appointed, she shall be discharged forthwith. ii) The respondents no.1 to 3 are hereby directed to examine the case of the present applicant and the applicant Smt. Mitha M in application - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 No.1161 of 2023 decided on 06.11.2023 on the basis of merits, reservation claimed by the candidates and also considering their age, if relevant for consideration in terms of Recruitment Rules and select one of them to the post of Assistant Professor in Electronics in the place of Smt. Shweta Gali in accordance with law under the category of Sc/Woman and include the selected candidate name in the final selection list and issue appointment order within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if the applicant is otherwise eligible. iii) The seniority of the applicant shall be maintained as per the merit based select list on the basis of which she is appointed to service. However the applicant is entitled for salary and monetary benefits from the date of reporting for duty only if the appointment is issued within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the KEA preferred these petitions. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner-KEA in Writ Petition Nos.2093, 8884 and 2899 of 2024 has contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is without application of mind, arbitrary, illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hence, it is liable to be quashed. He further submits - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the facts stated by the KEA. The Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that KEA has acted on the directions issued by the 1st Respondent Government. The KEA has no independent right to call for the Applications to the post of Assistant Professors. It is Respondent No.1 who is vested with powers to call for Applications and recruit to the post of Assistant Professors and the KEA is only the implementing agency. He submits that the KEA neither issues any notification independently nor appoints the candidates. The KEA is only the agency to execute the order passed by the Government. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal holding that the KEA is responsible for all alleged misdeeds is totally bad in law and called for interference of this Court. He submits that the Tribunal has not considered the fact that Respondent No.4 made a representation to KEA to consider her Application as the subject of VLSI Design and Embedded System as equivalence to Electronic subject and the same was forwarded to the Government-Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 by letter dated 06.01.2023 has clarified that the subject of the 4th - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 Respondent is also equivalent to the subject-Electronics. Based on the said communication, the KEA thereafter, issued another notification calling for document verification, who are qualified as per the Government letter dated 06.01.2023. The said fact has not been properly considered by the Tribunal. He further submits that the Tribunal has failed to note that in Notification dated 18-11-2021, M.Tech in Electronics and communication is mentioned and most of the Universities in Karnataka issues M.Tech degree with nomenclature as VLSI Design and Embedded system/Digital Electronics, etc., in respect of Electronics and Communication Engineering, instead of Electronics and Communication and hence, clarification was sought for from the Government. The action of the KEA is in consonance with amended Rule 3a(i) of the Karnataka Education Department Services (Collegiate Education Department) (Recruitment of Assistant Professors) (Special) Rules, 2020 under which the Notifications dated 26.08.2021 as well as dated 30.09.2021 were issued, the KEA has not changed the rules of selection, but merely gave opportunity to those candidates, whose subjects are treated as equivalent as - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 per the State Government letter dated 06.01.2023 and the said fact has not been considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the impugned Order dated 06.11.2023 is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the KEA has conducted selection process in a fair manner and in accordance with law and the candidates eligible have been included in the Selection list and forwarded to the Government for appropriate action/orders. The Tribunal has failed to consider even this aspect and passed the impugned order. He further submits that the KEA has nothing to do with any clarification issued by the State Government with regard to equivalence. The KEA is not the competent authority to decide the equivalence on any subject. It is the Government, which decides the issue of equivalence. Based on the Government Order, the KEA issued Notification. Hence, the order of the Tribunal in imposing cost on the KEA is uncalled for and liable to be quashed. Hence, learned counsel prayed to allow the petitions filed by the KEA. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 W.P. No.2901/2024 12. The petitioner Yogesh B.N., has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in Application No.1715/2023, wherein, the Tribunal allowed the application of one Zuberahmed Punekar in part and quashed the selection list in so far as the petitioner and also directed other respondents to issue appointment order to respondent No.5 Mahantesh Shubash Hinglaje thus, he filed the instant petition contending that the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and against the factual aspects. It has failed to appreciate relevant facts for its consideration. The Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the selected list appointing the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor is done based on the directions of the Government, which once again is based on the decision made by the Expert Committee on 16.12.2022. However, the decision of the Expert Committee has not been challenged before the Tribunal. Further, no reasons have been assigned as to why the declaration by the Expert Committee in its meeting held on 16.12.2022 is illegal or beyond its jurisdiction. The Tribunal has - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 failed to record findings of the Expert Committee. The Expert Committee has based its decision only on the interpretation of the existing rules and hierarchy of the appointments and there was no fresh decision, but, it was out come of the decision of the Expert Committee, which led to passing of the notification dated 06.01.2023 bearing No.ED 303 DCE 2022. However, the Tribunal has not assigned any reasoning while setting-aside the notification dated 06.01.2023. Thus, it is contrary to the ratio laid down in the case of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another reported in 2008 (3) SCC 512. Therefore, undoing something which has already been concluded insofar as appointment of the petitioner, is violation of principles of natural justice, causing, undue hardship to the party. Further, the educational qualification such as M.Tech in VSLI design and Embedded Systems is equivalent to and comes within the meaning of the subject to Electronics. This inclusive meaning given by the Expert Committee, would not have found fault by the Tribunal, as nothing new was introduced and it is in conformity with the provisions of KCS (General Recruitment) - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 Rules, 1977. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the petition. 13. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Vikas Rojipura appearing for the State, and Sri Vijayakumar learned counsel for respondent No.3 justified the order of the Tribunal, accordingly, prayed to dispose of the matters in accordance with law. 14. Sri Divyathej A.B., learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.2901/2024 has taken up the contention that the finding given by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law, as it has failed to appreciate the relevant facts for its consideration. In fact, the selected list appointing Smt. Yogesh B.N. (petitioner in WP No.2901/2024) to the post of Assistant Professor was based on the directions of the Government, which was based on the decision made by the Expert Committee dated 16.12.2022. The decision of Expert Committee has not been challenged before the Tribunal. Further, no reasons are assigned as to why the declaration made by Expert Committee is illegal or beyond its jurisdiction. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 The Tribunal has not assigned any reasons in this regard. In fact, the Expert Committee has based its decision only on the interpretation of the existing rules and hierarchy of the appointments. There was no fresh decision, which is outcome of the said decision of the Expert Committee, which has led to the passing of Notification dated 06.01.2023, bearing No.ED 303 DCE 2022. The Tribunal has not given any proper reasoning during the course of rescinding the Notification of the State Government dated 06.01.2023. Thus, what is the rescinded, is not in accordance with ratio laid down in K. Manjusree's case referred supra. Therefore, undoing something which has already been concluded in so far as appointment of the petitioner herein, is violation of principles of natural justice, causing undue hardship to the party. The course in M.Tech in VSLI design and embedded systems, is equivalent to and comes within the meaning of the subject of Electronics. Therefore, an inclusive meaning given by the Expert Committee, could not have found fault with by the Tribunal, as nothing new is introduced and same is in conformity with the KCS (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 Thus, the learned counsel prayed to allow the petition filed by Sri. Yogesh B.N. 15. We have perused the material on record. What transpires from the material available on record is that the KEA was entrusted as Selection Authority for recruitment of 1242 posts of Assistant Professors in the Department of Collegiate Education, Bengaluru and hence, respondent No.1 issued Notification dated 08-07-2020 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors in Electronics. Pursuant to the Notification issued by the State Government, the KEA issued a Notification dated 30.09.2021 and invited applications for the posts of Assistant Professors in 26 subjects. The criteria for selection as per the notification dated 18.11.2021 issued by the State Government was 'Electronics' and applicants/respondent No.3 (Smt. Mitha M.) and respondent No.4 (Smt. Shwetha Gali) were selected. However, respondent No.4 made a representation to KEA stating that she has obtained Post-Graduation in M.Tech in VLSI Design and Embedded System Degree which is equivalent to Electronic - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 subject and as per the recommendations of Expert Committee, M.Tech in VLSI Design and Embedded System Degree was considered as equivalent to Electronics. Pursuant to the same, the name of candidate-Smt. Shwetha Gali was reflected and the name of third respondent Smt. Mitha M. was not included in the selection list. Questioning the same, respondent No.3 filed objections contending that respondent No.4 could not have been included as she has not been qualified and eligible for appointment of Assistant Professor as on the date of Notification and she being the next eligible candidate under SC/W, her claim be considered, but, ignoring the objections of Smt. Mitha M. (respondent No.3), the KEA has issued the final selection list of Assistant Professors, Electronics Department on 03-03-2023, showing the name of Shwetha Gali against the quota of SC/W. Therefore, Smt. Mitha M., challenged the final selection list issued by the KEA, on the ground that, it is in violation of law and also contrary to the KCS (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. Hence, it is to held that when once the recruitment process commences, the State of its instrumentaliry cannot tinker with the 'rules of the game; - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 insofar as prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned. SCOPE OF THE REFERENCE 16. Public services broadly fall in two categories. One, where services are in connection with the affairs of the State/Union. Second, where services are under the instrumentalities of the State. In either category, law governing recruitment must conform to the overarching principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 17. In various judicial pronouncements, the law governing recruitment to public services has been colloquially termed as ‘the rules of the game’. The ‘game’ is the process of selection and appointment. Courts have consistently frowned upon tinkering with the rules of the game once the recruitment process commences. This has crystallized into an oft-quoted legal phrase that “the rules of the game must not be changed mid-way, or after the game has been played”. Broadly-speaking these rules fall in two categories, one which prescribes the eligibility criteria (i.e., essential qualifications) of the candidates seeking employment; and the other which - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 stipulates the method and manner of making the selection from amongst the eligible candidates. 18. Cut-off date with reference to which eligibility has to be determined is the date appointed by the relevant service rules; where no such cut-off date is provided in the rules, then it will be the date appointed in the advertisement inviting applications; and if there is no such date appointed, then eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received. 19. The law is settled that after commencement of the recruitment process, the eligibility criteria is not to be altered because candidates even if eligible under the altered criteria might not apply by the last date under the belief that they are not eligible as per the advertised criteria. Such alteration/ change, therefore, deprives a person of the guarantee of equal opportunity in matters of public employment provided by Article 16 of the Constitution. The impugned Notification therefore acknowledges this legal position and in clear terms accepts that ‘the rules of the game’ - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 cannot be changed after commencement of the recruitment process insofar as the eligibility criteria is concerned. ANALYSIS 20. To effectively analyse and adjudicate upon the issue involved in these cases i.e., a change in the selection criteria which does/does not bear on the merit list, but, only affects appointment based thereupon, would not fall foul of either Article 16 or Article 14 of the Constitution, if such a change is in the larger interest of efficiency in the service. We would further divide our discussion into following parts: (a) When the recruitment process commences and comes to an end; (b) Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not be changed during the course of the game, or after the game is played; (c) Whether the decision in K.Manjusree's case referred supra is applicable to the cases on hand; (d) Whether the above doctrine applies with equal strictness - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 qua method or procedure for selection as it does qua eligibility criteria; (e) Whether procedure for selection stipulated by Act or Rules framed either under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or a Statute could be given a go-bye; (f) Whether appointment could be denied by change in the eligibility criteria after the game is played. 21. The process of recruitment begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies. It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment. BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE 22. The doctrine prescribing change of rules midway through the game, or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 16 is only an instance of the application of - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In other words, Article 14 is the genus, while Article 16 is a species. Article 16 gives effect to the concept of equality in all matters relating to public employment. These two articles strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles alike to all similarly situate and not to be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations. In all its actions, the State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner. This is an elementary requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary State action which Article 14 of the Constitution adopts. A deprivation of the entitlement of private citizens and private business must be proportional to a requirement grounded in public interest. 23. The principle of fairness in action requires that public authorities be held accountable for their representations. Good administration requires public authorities to act in a predictable manner and honour the promises made or practices established, unless there is good reason not to do so. - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 24. Candidates participating in a recruitment process have legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair and non-arbitrary. The basis of doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is founded on the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in government dealings with individuals. It recognises that a public authority’s promise or past conduct will give rise to a legitimate expectation. This doctrine is premised on the notion that public authorities, while performing their public duties, ought to honour their promises or past practices. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law, custom, or established procedure. However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not impede or hinder the power of the public authorities to lay down a policy or withdraw it. The public authority has the discretion to exercise the full range of choices available within its executive power. The public authority often has to take into consideration diverse factors, concerns, and interests before arriving at a particular policy decision. The courts are generally cautious in interfering with a bona fide decision of public authorities which denies legitimate expectation provided such a decision is taken - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 in the larger public interest. Thus, public interest serves as a limitation on the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Courts have to determine whether the public interest is compelling and sufficient to outweigh the legitimate expectation of the claimant. While performing a balancing exercise, courts have to often grapple with the issues of burden and standard of proof required to dislodge the claim of legitimate expectation. 25. In K. Manjusree's case referred supra, the recruitment exercise was for selection and appointments to the posts of District & Sessions Judges (Grade II). The extant rules prescribed the eligibility qualifications, but were silent on the procedure for selection. The manner and method of selection was therefore to be decided by the High Court for every selection as and when the vacancies were notified for selection. The vacancies were notified by the State Government. As per the advertisement for selection a written examination followed by an interview were to be held. By a resolution dated 30.11.2004, the Administrative Committee of the High Court - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 resolved to conduct written examination for 75 marks and interview for 25 marks. It was also resolved that the minimum qualifying marks for the Open category, Backward category, SC and ST candidates shall be as prescribed earlier. Following the High Court’s direction, written examination was held on 30.1.2005, and its results were declared on 24.2.2005, wherein 83 candidates were successful. Interviews were held in March 2006. Thereafter, the marks obtained by those 83 candidates were aggregated and a consolidated merit list was prepared in the order of merit on the basis of the aggregate marks. The merit list inter alia contained marks secured in the written examinations out of 100; marks secured in the interview out of 25; and the total marks secured in the written examination and interview out of 125. Based on that list, the Administrative Committee approved the selection of ten candidates as per merit and reservation. However, the Full Court did not agree with the select list prepared. Consequently, Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted a Committee of Judges for preparing a fresh list. The Committee recommended that in place of 100 marks for the written examination and 25 marks for the interview, the - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 candidates should be evaluated with reference to 75 marks for the written examination and 25 marks for the interview in line with earlier resolution dated 30.11.2004. The Committee also recommended that the minimum pass percentage applied for the written examination to determine the eligibility of the candidates for appearance in the interview should also be applied for interview marks, and those who failed to secure such minimum marks in the interview should be considered as having failed. Based on the recommendation of the Committee, the minimum percentage for passing the written examination (i.e., 50% for OC, 40% for BC, and 35% for SC and ST) was applied for interview and, therefore, only those candidates who secured the minimum of 12.5 marks in OC, 10 marks in BC and 8.7 marks in SC and ST were considered as having succeeded in the interview. As a result, only 31 candidates were found to have qualified both in the written examination and interview. In consequence, a revised merit list of only 31 successful candidates was prepared wherein few candidates, earlier selected, were ousted and few others who did not find place in the earlier select list gained entry. However, out of those 31 - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 candidates, only 9 were recommended for appointment. 26. What is important in K. Manjusree's case referred (supra) is that the minimum marks for the interview was fixed after the interviews were over. In that context, it was observed (a) that the game was played under the rule that there was no minimum marks for the interview, therefore introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process consisting of written examination and interview was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played; and (b) if the interviewers had to proceed on the basis that there were minimum marks to be secured in the interview for being considered for selection and that the marks awarded by them would have the effect of barring or ousting any candidate from being considered for selection, the awarding of marks might have been markedly different. 27. The ultimate object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favoritism. - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services. It is now well settled that while a written examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidate's overall intellectual and personal qualities. While written examination has certain distinct advantages over the interview test, there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidate’s initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Thus, the written examination assesses the man’s intellect and the interview test, the man himself and “the twain shall meet” for a proper selection. 28. What is clear from above is that the object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to ensure - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 that a person most suitable for the post is selected. What is suitable for one post may not be for the other. Thus, a degree of discretion is necessary to be left to the employer to devise its method/ procedure to select a candidate most suitable for the post albeit subject to the overarching principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as also the Rules/Statute governing service and reservation. Thus, in our view, the appointing authority/ recruiting authority/ competent authority, in absence of Rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and while doing so, it may also set benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process including written examination and interview. However, if any such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process. But if the extant Rules or the advertisement inviting applications empower the competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages of the recruitment process, then such benchmarks may be set any time before that stage is reached so that neither the candidate nor the evaluator/ examiner/ interviewer is taken by surprise. - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 The decision in K. Manjusree's case referred supra does not prescribe setting of benchmarks for various stages of the recruitment process, but mandates that it should not be set after the stage is over, in other words, after the game has already been played. This view is in consonance with the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and meets the legitimate expectation of the candidates as also the requirement of transparency in recruitment to public services and thereby obviates mal practices in preparation of select list. RULE DOES NOT APPLY WITH EQUAL STRICTNESS TO STEPS FOR SELECTION 29. As already noticed in Section (A), a recruitment process inter alia comprises of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment. Subject to the rule against arbitrariness, how tests or viva voce are to be - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 conducted, what questions are to be put, in what manner evaluation is to be done, whether a short listing exercise is needed are all matters of procedure which, in absence of rules to the contrary, may be devised by the competent authority. Often advertisement(s) inviting applications are open-ended in terms of these steps and leave it to the discretion of the competent authority to adopt such steps as may be considered necessary in the circumstances albeit subject to the overarching principle of rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 30. To elucidate the above proposition, we shall notice few instances where the procedure devised by the recruiting body has been approved by Hon'ble Apex Court. In Santosh Kumar Tripathi and Others v. U.P. Power Corporation and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 210, the Hon'ble Apex Court was required to consider whether the Rule enabling Service Commission to examine, interview, select and recommend suitable candidates would include power to hold written examination. The Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the High Court’s view that power to ‘examine’ would include holding of - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 written examination. 31. There can therefore be no doubt that where there are no Rules or the Rules are silent on the subject, administrative instructions may be issued to supplement and fill in the gaps in the Rules. In that event, administrative instructions would govern the field, provided they are not ultra vires the provisions of the Rules or the Statute or the Constitution. But where the Rules expressly or impliedly cover the field, the recruiting body would have to abide by the Rules. 32. A candidate placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies are available. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220), wherein, it was observed that, against 15 vacancies, only top 7 from the select list were appointed. But there was a caveat. The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate. Therefore, when a challenge is laid to State’s action in respect of denying appointment to a selected - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 candidate, the burden is on the State to justify its decision for not making appointment from the Select List. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, i) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; ii) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process, unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness. 33. Whereas, in this case (WP No.2901/2024-petitioner- Yogesh B.N.), the directions contained in the letter dated 06.01.2023 has nothing to do with the KEA and from the perusal of Annexure-A13, which was issued by Principal Secretary, to Government, Higher Education Department to KEA, which had apparently submitted a proposal in the matter - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 vide letter dated 17.11.2022. Therefore, the fidelity of the selection process has been infringed by the KEA, it should have been aware that, the rules of the game in which is included Educational Qualification or declaration of equivalence cannot be changed midway through the selection process. Further, in the Government letter dated 06.01.2023, there is no direction that it is to be given effect in respect of recruitments undertaken by the authorities. Therefore, mistakenly, a decision has been taken to consider the letter dated 06.01.2023, in order to help certain candidates like the petitioner-Yogesh B.N. and Smt. Shwetha Gali and thereby, caused hurdle to the selection of Smt. Mitha M. and Smt. Anitha K. T. Thus, the selection of Sri Yogesh B.N. and Smt. Shwetha Gali requires to be set aside, accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly set aside their appointment and hence no interference is called for, in that regard. The ideal in recruitment is to do away with unfairness. Once the recruitment process commences the State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the "rules of the game" in so far as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned, - 42 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 wondered whether that should apply also to the procedure for selection. 34. So far as, the writ petitions filed by the KEA viz., W.P.No.2899/2024, W.P.No.2093/2024 and WP No.8884/2024 challenging the orders dated 03.11.2023, 06.11.2023 and 06.12.2023 respectively, of the Tribunal with regard to imposition of cost against the KEA, wherein, the Tribunal while disposing the applications No.1715/2023 and 1161/2023 imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively, in fact, the KEA neither issues any Notification independently nor appoint the candidates. The KEA is only the agency to execute the order passed by the Government. The action of the KEA was depending upon the directions issued by the State Government. Therefore, imposing cost on the KEA without assigning reasons is not just and proper, thus, the cost imposed on the KEA is liable to be set aside. - 43 - NC: 2025:KHC:5490-DB WP No. 2093 of 2024 C/W WP No. 2899 of 2024 WP No. 2901 of 2024 AND WP No. 8884 of 2024 35. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER 1. W.P. No.2901/2024 is dismissed. 2. W.P. Nos.2899/2024, W.P. No.2093/2024 and W.P.No.8884/2024 are allowed-in-part. 3. The cost imposed on the KEA in Application No.1715/2023 and 1161/2023 are hereby set aside. 4. However, the order passed by the Tribunal in Application No.1715/2023, 1161/2023 and 3051/2023 are hereby confirmed. 5. No order as to costs. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1